Economic

Research

Service

Electronic Publications from the Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Program

Feeding Low-Income Children When

School Is Out—The Summer Food

Service Program

By Anne Gordon, Ronette Briefel, Karen Needels, Nancy

Wemmerus, Teresa Zavitsky, Randy Russo, Tania Tasse, Laura

Kalb, Anne Peterson, and Darryl Creel of Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc.

ERS project representative: Jane E. Allshouse

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP),

funds meals for children in low-income areas when school is not in session. The first comprehensive study of the SFSP since 1986 found that, in fiscal year 2001, more than 4,000 local

sponsors provided about 130 million meals at more than 35,000 feeding sites. The number of

children served in July 2001 (2.1 million per day) was about 14 percent of the number who

received free or reduced-price school meals each day during the previous school year. On

average, SFSP meals provided the levels of key nutrients recommended for school meals.

However, breakfasts were slightly lower in food energy than recommended, and lunches were

higher in fat. Half the SFSP sponsors were school districts, which operated about half the

sites and served about half the meals. Other sponsors included government agencies, private

nonprofit organizations, and residential camps. The nationally representative study, which

was sponsored by USDA's Economic Research Service, surveyed State administrators, sponsor staff, and site staff on program operations and on factors that affect participation.

E-FAN-03-001

March 2003

This report was prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under 

a research contract from the Economic Research Service.

Executive Summary

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge our coauthors on the full study report: Karen

Needels, Nancy Wemmerus, Teresa Zavitsky, Randy Rosso, Tania Tasse, Laura Kalb,

Anne Peterson, and Darryl Creel. We also received valuable input fromJane Allshouse,

Betsy Frazao, David Smallwood, and others at the Economic Research Service, and

from Linda Jupin, Anita Singh, and others at the Food and Nutrition Service.
ii ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................1

Data Sources .................................................................................................................2

Program Characteristics..............................................................................................2

State Agencies............................................................................................................3

Sponsors .....................................................................................................................3

Sites............................................................................................................................4

Participant Characteristics .........................................................................................5

Changes Since 1986...................................................................................................6

Program Administration..............................................................................................6

State Agencies’ Administration of Sponsors..............................................................6

Sponsors’ Administration of Their Sites....................................................................8

Outreach and Participation.........................................................................................8

Staffs’ Views on Barriers and Outreach.....................................................................9

Sponsor Entry and Exit..............................................................................................9

Meal Service................................................................................................................10

Meal Service Arrangements.....................................................................................10

SFSP Meal Pattern Requirements............................................................................10

Nutritional Standards Used To Assess Meals ..........................................................11

Nutrient Content of Meals .......................................................................................12

Plate Waste...............................................................................................................13

Conclusions .................................................................................................................14

Simplifying Program Administration.......................................................................14

Expanding Participation...........................................................................................15

Improving Meals and Reducing Waste....................................................................15

References ...................................................................................................................16
Introduction

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) provides

meals to children when school is not in session. To be

eligible to offer the program, feeding sites generally

must be located in low-income areas or must serve

primarily low-income children. Because SFSP meals

usually are provided in conjunction with activities for

children, the program also helps to sustain summer

programs that promote physical activity, and that 

foster children’s social and educational development.

The SFSP is funded through the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) and is supervised by State

administrative agencies and USDA’s Food and

Nutrition Service (FNS). The program had expenditures of $272 million in fiscal year 2001. More than

4,000 local agencies (sponsors) provided meals at

more than 35,000 feeding sites. In July 2001, about

2.1 million children per day received SFSP meals.

This report summarizes the results of the SFSP

Implementation Study, a descriptive study of the operations of the SFSP at the State and local levels.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under contract to

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), collected

nationally representative data during summer 2001 

to describe how the program works, and how SFSP

staff think it could be improved. The study’s major

research questions are as follows:

• How does the SFSP operate at the State, sponsor,

and site levels?

• What factors affect participation by sponsors and

children? What barriers to participation do program

staff believe are the most important? What efforts

are program staff making to expand participation?

What factors are associated with sponsors’ entry 

and exit?

• What is the nutritional quality of meals served, 

and what is the extent of plate waste? How are

SFSP meals prepared and served, and what types of

foods do they contain? How well do the meals meet

USDA requirements and other nutrition standards?

What factors are associated with more nutritious

meals and less waste?

Feeding Low-Income Children 

When School Is Out

The Summer Food Service Program

Executive Summary

Anne Gordon 

Ronette Briefel

Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out ✥ 1
Data Sources

Study interviewers collected nationally representative

data at the State, sponsor, and site levels, as well as

from former sponsors. All SFSP State administrators

were interviewed by telephone. Samples of sponsors

and samples of sites were selected from lists of sponsors provided by State agencies and from lists of sites

provided by sampled sponsors, respectively. Study

staff then conducted a mail survey with telephone 

followup of 126 SFSP sponsors and a telephone survey

of 131 former sponsors (organizations that had participated as sponsors in 2000 but not in 2001). In addition,

study interviewers visited 162 sites operated by sampled

sponsors. While on site, the interviewers conducted 

in-person interviews with site supervisors; completed

structured observations of site operations (including

the site’s setting and activities offered, characteristics

of participants, and food service facilities); recorded

detailed descriptions of the types and amounts of 

foods served on 5 or 10 randomly selected plates; and

recorded detailed descriptions of the types and amounts

of food left on 10 randomly selected plates. During the

site visits, interviewers always observed lunch and, if

multiple meals were served at a site, observed either

breakfast or supper in addition to lunch. (They did not

observe snacks.) The survey response rates ranged

from 89 percent (for the survey of former sponsors) to

100 percent (for the survey of State administrators). In

the analysis, data from each survey have been weighted

to be nationally representative.

The study also compiled a database of basic characteristics of all 2001 SFSP sponsors and sites, based on

lists provided by the State agencies. Key sponsor 

characteristics were tabulated from this census database.

Program Characteristics

The SFSP began in 1968 as a pilot program to provide

meals to low-income children during the summer. 

In 1975, it was authorized as a permanent program,

and participation (measured by reported average daily

attendance in July) increased dramatically (fig. 1).

However, findings of fraud and abuse (particularly

among nonprofit sponsors) during the late 1970s led to

greater administrative oversight of sponsors, and to

2 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out Economic Research Service/USDA
restrictions on nonprofit sponsors. The Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 went further, prohibiting private nonprofit groups (except private

schools and residential camps) from serving as sponsors. It also set a more restrictive income threshold 

for site eligibility. Participation declined from the 

mid-1970s through the mid-1980s but then began to

increase as USDA and advocates worked to publicize

and expand the program. In 1989, nonprofit sponsors

were readmitted, but with restrictions. The program

continued to expand throughout the early 1990s.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 reduced reimbursement

rates, reduced the number of reimbursable meals 

per day, and eliminated startup and expansion grants 

to sponsors. However, other legislative changes 

implemented in 1998 eased restrictions on nonprofit

sponsors and streamlined paperwork requirements for 

experienced sponsors. Average daily attendance has

changed little since the mid-1990s.

State Agencies

The SFSP operates in all 50 States, Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia (all of

which are referred to as “States” in this report). In

most States, a State government agency— usually the

State education agency that administers the school

meal programs — administers the SFSP. In 2001, State

education agencies administered the entire SFSP

program in 41 States; in New York, the State education

agency administered the program for school and 

government sponsors. In nine States, a State agency

other than the education agency administered the 

program. (Departments of agriculture, health, and

social services were among the other agencies.) In two

States in which the State governments did not operate

the program —Virginia and Michigan — FNS regional

offices performed the functions of the State agency.

FNS also administered nonprofit and camp sponsors 

in New York.1

Sponsors

SFSP sponsors are extremely diverse in terms of the

nature of their organizations, the size of their programs, and the way they prepare and serve meals. 

The nature of SFSP sponsor organizations affects the

activities they offer with the program, their administrative capacities, and the fit between the SFSP and the

sponsors’ missions. The five major types of SFSP

sponsors are (1) School Food Authorities (SFAs —

the entities that administer the National School Lunch

Program (NSLP) in schools or school districts), 

(2) government agencies, (3) residential camps, 

(4) National Youth Sports Programs (NYSPs —

federally funded sports camps for low-income children

run by colleges or universities), and (5) other nonprofit 

organizations (fig. 2).

(1) SFAs made up roughly half (48 percent) of all 

sponsors in 2001, ran about half (49 percent) of 

all sites, and served about half (51 percent) of all 

meals. SFAs generally are well-suited to serve as 

sponsors, as they are experienced in preparing 

meals for children and often have school buildings

and staff available for sites. To increase access, 

some SFAs sponsor sites at other locations in the 

community in addition to schools.

(2) Government agencies (usually municipal recreation or social services departments) constituted 

14 percent of sponsors but were the largest 

sponsors, on average, operating 36 percent of sites 

and serving 31 percent of meals. Government 

sponsors often lack the facilities and expertise 

needed to prepare meals at their sites and therefore

are the most likely sponsor type to use vendors.

1 FNS regional office staff who administered State programs were 

included in the State administrator survey. For New York, staff from

both the State education agency and the FNS regional office were

interviewed, essentially counting New York as two States.

Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out ✥ 3
(3) Residential camps made up about 16 percent of 

all sponsors. Camps operated few sites relative to 

other sponsors but served three meals daily so 

that, overall, they ran 3 percent of sites and served 

7 percent of meals. Although food service is an 

essential part of their programs, camps focus

primarily on other activities. Camps almost always

have staff and facilities on site to prepare meals.

(4) NYSPs constituted fewer than 4 percent of sponsors and served fewer than 1 percent of meals. 

Like camps, NYSPs focus on offering activities to 

participants. NYSPs may use college facilities or 

may contract with vendors for preparation of meals.

(5) Other nonprofit organizations (including religious 

organizations, youth organizations, and community

agencies) represented 18 percent of sponsors. 

However, program regulations generally restricted 

them to no more than 25 sites. They operated 12 

percent of sites and served 10 percent of all meals.

Nonprofit sponsors offer a diverse range of activities and approaches to meal service.

Most SFSP sponsors operated small programs, but a

few sponsors that operated large numbers of sites served

a large proportion of program meals (fig. 3). Half of all

sponsors ran only one site; these sponsors together

served just 11 percent of all meals. Another 36 percent

of sponsors ran 2 to 10 sites and served 20 percent of

all meals. In contrast, 1 percent of sponsors operated

more than 100 sites; they served 35 percent of all meals.

Most sponsors prepared meals themselves, most 

frequently at the serving site. Sixty-three percent 

prepared meals on site; however, many of these 

sponsors were small, serving only 26 percent of all

SFSP meals (fig. 4). Other sponsors, including many

large ones, prepared at least some meals at a central

kitchen and delivered them to their sites; 19 percent

of sponsors used central kitchens, but they prepared 

44 percent of meals.2 About 18 percent of sponsors

(providing 30 percent of meals) purchased meals from 

vendors —12 percent contracted with private food

service management companies, and 6 percent 

contracted with their local SFAs.

Sites

Most SFSP sites are in low-income neighborhoods and

are open to all children. Sites qualify as SFSP sites in

three major ways (fig. 5):

(1) Open sites (83 percent of sites) are eligible 

because they are located in neighborhoods in 

which at least 50 percent of children live in households with incomes at or below 185 percent of 

the poverty line. These sites must be open to all 

children who wish to attend.3 They are reimbursed 

for all meals served to children.

(2) Enrolled sites (14 percent) establish eligibility by 

documenting that at least 50 percent of enrolled 

children live in households with incomes at or 

below 185 percent of the poverty line. A site that 

has demonstrated eligibility is reimbursed for all 

2 Sponsors that used onsite preparation at some sites but delivered to others from a central kitchen are included in the “central

kitchen” category here. A distinction is made in Feeding LowIncome Children When School Is Out–The Summer Food Service

Program: Final Report between these sponsors and sponsors that

only used a central kitchen.

3 Some open sites may restrict attendance for safety, security, or

control reasons. The study did not assess how common these

“restricted open” sites were.

4 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out Economic Research Service/USDA
meals served to enrolled children, regardless of the

household income.4

(3) Residential camp sites (3 percent) are reimbursed 

only for meals served to children from households 

with incomes at or below 185 percent of the 

poverty line.

Most SFSP sites can be reimbursed for only two meals

or snacks served per day. Camp sites and sites that

serve primarily migrant children can be reimbursed for

as many as three meals or snacks per day. Almost all

sites served lunch in 2001, and about half served

breakfast (fig. 6).5 Considerably fewer sites served

supper (5 percent) or a snack (19 percent).

Nearly all sites (93 percent) offered activities. More

than three-quarters offered each of the following 

activities: educational activities, supervised free play,

organized games or sports, and arts and crafts. About

two-thirds offered field trips, and half offered swimming. Smaller percentages of sites offered a wide

range of other activities, such as cooking, job training,

and religious activities. The activities that open sites

offered sometimes required enrollment, even though 

the meals were available to all children.6 For example,

SFAs that offer the SFSP in conjunction with

summer school must open their sites to children who

are not attending summer school. Some open sites

made activities available on a “drop-in” basis. About 

one-third of sites provided some or all children with

transportation.

On average, SFSP sites were open for slightly longer

than 7 weeks. Sixty-two percent of sites were open 

for 6 weeks or longer, and 32 percent were open for 

8 weeks or longer (fig. 7). Only 10 percent of sites

were open for fewer than 4 weeks. Almost all sites 

(93 percent) were open at least 5 days per week.

Participant Characteristics

Based on site supervisors’ estimates, the SFSP served

primarily elementary-age children in 2001 (58 percent

of children attending), although it also served preschoolers (17 percent) and older children (25 percent)

(table 1). Boys and girls attended in equal numbers.

Children who attended were of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds — 39 percent were African American,

29 percent were White (non-Hispanic), 27 percent

were Hispanic, and 5 percent were Asian, American

Indian, or members of other racial and ethnic groups.

4 NYSP sites (fewer than 1 percent of sites) are subject to special 

eligibility rules, but they are most similar to enrolled sites.

5 All sites in the sample served lunch. Administrative data suggest that about 2 percent of sites did not serve lunch.

6 The interviewers did not collect quantitative information on

how often the activities were not open, but they observed that

enrollment for activities was required at multiple sites.

Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out ✥ 5
Changes Since 1986

The last major study of the SFSP was conducted in

1986 (Ohls et al., 1988). At the time, the program was

just beginning to grow after a period of decline. From

1986 to 2001, the number of sponsors nearly doubled,

and average daily attendance in July grew 40 percent,

from 1.5 million to 2.1 million. SFA sponsors and nonprofit sponsors accounted for nearly all of the growth

in the number of sponsors and in participation. The

number of SFA sponsors nearly tripled, and nonprofit

sponsors, which were not part of the program in the

late 1980s, comprised nearly one-fifth of sponsors

in 2001. Partly as a reflection of the changes in the

types of sponsors, SFSP sites were more likely to

serve breakfast in 2001 than in 1986 and were more

likely to be open for longer than 6 weeks. However,

the proportion of sites that established eligibility as

open sites did not change, nor did the proportion of

children served who were of elementary-school age.

Program Administration

The study examined the interactions between SFSP

State agencies and sponsors and between sponsor 

staff and site staff. These relationships are key to the

administration of the SFSP.

State Agencies’ Administration of Sponsors

State agencies play vital roles in the SFSP. These

agencies recruit new sponsors, process sponsors’

applications, provide training and technical assistance

to sponsors, monitor their operations, and process 

their claims.

Applications

In their applications, new sponsors must establish their

eligibility, describe how they will provide meals, and

provide a budget for administrative and operating costs

that meets program requirements. They also must provide detailed information on every site they intend to

operate, including site location, estimated attendance,

hours of meal service, and documentation of site eligibility. State staff also must visit the new sponsors’ facilities before approval is granted. Experienced sponsors

recently were allowed to omit some information from

their applications that remains the same from year to

year, but they still must provide a detailed budget.7

State administrators considered the application process

for SFSP sponsorship to be demanding for their 

agencies and sponsors. Thirty-nine percent of State

agencies reported that their staffing was inadequate for

the application process. This shortfall may reflect the

fact that most applications are processed in the spring.

Most State agencies (82 percent) reported that they

7 Some of these requirements have been changed for sponsors

under current pilot or waiver projects; see the discussion in the

concluding section. The pilot projects affected 25 percent of 

sponsors in summer 2001, based on data from the Sponsor-Site

Database.

6 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out Economic Research Service/USDA
often (as opposed to sometimes or rarely) provided

technical assistance with the application process;

applications ranked higher than any other topic in

terms of frequency of technical assistance. According

to 46 percent of the State administrators, budget 

preparation for applications was the most difficult of

all the training topics for new sponsors both during

and after training. State agencies ultimately accepted

96 percent of applications.

The questionnaire asked sponsors to comment on 

the application process in an open-ended question;

only 25 percent volunteered any comments. Half the

sponsors who did comment stated that the paperwork

should be simplified; a few others suggested simplifying specific parts of the application.

Training and Technical Assistance

The State administrators reported that providing 

training and technical assistance to sponsors was one

of their major activities. Most sponsors reported that

the formal training sessions were helpful. States 

provided an average of 6 hours of sponsor training.

Training sessions were held during the late winter or

the spring, while sponsors were preparing applications.

Many States (69 percent) provided longer sessions 

for new sponsors. Eighty-eight percent of sponsors

reported that some of their staff attended the State

training. All the sponsors that did not send staff were

experienced sponsors.

Fifty-eight percent of sponsors reported receiving 

technical assistance (individualized help outside of a

formal training session) from a State agency, and they

were generally satisfied with the assistance they

received. However, two out of every five sponsors

would have liked additional technical assistance on 

at least one topic.

Monitoring

State administrators reported undertaking monitoring

activities that were largely consistent with the monitoring required by SFSP regulations. To ensure that sponsors follow program rules and correct any problems,

State agencies are required to conduct administrative

reviews of all sponsors at least once every 3 years, 

to review all new sponsors, and to review annually

sponsors with large programs or recent problems.

Administrative reviews consist of a detailed inspection

of all paperwork that sponsors must keep to document

their reimbursement claims, including meal count

sheets from sites, meal production or vendor delivery

records, and staff time sheets. State monitors also visit

some of the sponsors’ sites to ensure that meals meet

nutritional and safety requirements, and that they are

counted appropriately.

Table 1—Characteristics of SFSP participants

Most participants were of elementary-school age

Characteristic Meals served

Grade level/age: Percent

Preschool age 17

Elementary-school age 58

Middle-school or junior high-school age 20

High-school age 5

Sex:

Female 51

Male 49

Race/ethnicity:

African American, not Hispanic 39

White, not Hispanic 29

Hispanic 27

Other1 5

Sample size 162

Note: Data have been weighted to estimate the percent of SFSP 

meals served to children in each group.

1Other racial or ethnic groups include American Indian, Alaskan 

Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, and any others.

Source: ERS SFSP 2001 Site Supervisor Survey.

Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out ✥ 7
The State administrators reported that, on average,

State agencies reviewed about 94 percent of new sponsors and 58 percent of experienced sponsors; some of

these estimates were preliminary.8 State agencies 

visited 30 percent of all sites, on average. In 52 percent

of the States, all or most site visits were unannounced.

Unannounced visits are preferable for ensuring that 

the program is observed as it usually operates, but 

they may be impractical if monitors must travel long

distances.

Sponsors’ Administration of Their Sites

Sponsors are responsible for arranging for meal service

at their sites, providing training and technical assistance to site staff, monitoring their sites’ compliance

with program rules, and preparing claims for reimbursement. The complexity of these activities varies

considerably with the size and type of sponsor. In the

case of single-site sponsors, sponsor and site staff may

be the same. Larger sponsors may hire site staff 

directly, find other organizations to provide sites and

staff (often, organizations that provide activities for

children) and provide only the meals themselves

(along with appropriate training, monitoring, and

financial oversight), or operate some sites with their

own staff and provide meals to others.

Costs and Funding

Most sponsors (72 percent) expected that SFSP reimbursements would not cover all their costs. Previous

research also found that SFSP reimbursements did not

fully cover most sponsors’ costs (U.S. General

Accounting Office, 1998). Fifty-seven percent of 

sponsors that did not expect costs to be fully covered

planned to supplement SFSP resources with their own

funds. Others planned to use funds from other State 

or Federal sources or from their parent organizations.

About 75 percent of sponsors that had operated for

longer than 1 year reported using one or more 

strategies, such as reducing the number of staff or

sites, to control costs during the past few years.

Training and Technical Assistance

Sponsors generally provided the required training and

often provided technical assistance. However, site staff

reported varying amounts of contact with sponsors.

Most sponsors (93 percent) reported that they conducted training sessions for their site staff. Training

lasted an average of 3 hours. The sessions covered such

topics as meal count records, health regulations, and

site violations. The sponsors that did not train their site

staff were single-site sponsors with only a few staff;

they sent some staff to the State-run training sessions.

As of the time of data collection, 60 percent of site

supervisors reported receiving technical assistance

from sponsor staff. The most frequent technical assistance topics were record keeping (mentioned by 88

percent of those receiving assistance), meal order

adjustments (73 percent), and food safety (72 percent).

Site staff reported wide variation in the number of

sponsor visits and the frequency of discussions with

sponsors about menus.9 Some sites had received no

visits from sponsors at the time of data collection,

whereas some had received as many as three visits

daily. Twenty-five percent had frequently discussed

menus with sponsors, and 34 percent sometimes

discussed menus; 41 percent never had this discussion.

Monitoring

Sponsors reported monitoring their sites regularly, but

a few sites reported that the sponsor had not yet visited.

Sponsors are required to visit each of their sites at

least once during the first week of program operations,

and to conduct a more comprehensive review at least

once during the first 4 weeks of operations. Eightyfour percent of sponsors reported that they reviewed

all sites at least twice, and 73 percent reported that all

visits to sites were unannounced. At the same time,

about 10 percent of supervisors of sites that had been

open more than a week before data collection reported

that the sponsor had not yet visited.

Outreach and Participation

FNS has expressed its commitment to expanding the

availability of the SFSP to low-income children (Food

and Nutrition Service, 2002b). July SFSP participation

is approximately 14 percent of the number of lowincome children who received free or reduced-price

school lunches through the NSLP during the school

year. One reason participation is lower is that SFSP

open sites must be located in low-income neighborhoods, whereas the NSLP is available everywhere. In 8 State administrators provided estimates of new sponsors, new

sponsor reviews, and experienced sponsor reviews, as many 

agencies had not completed reviews or paperwork at the time of

the interview. Because these estimates were preliminary, it is not

possible to conclude that States were not meeting the regulation 

to review all new sponsors.

9 These questions were asked only of site supervisors for multisite 

sponsors.

8 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out Economic Research Service/USDA
addition, attendance at SFSP sites is voluntary, while

children must attend school and, thus, are a “captive

audience” for the school meal programs.

The study explored each of the major approaches to

expanding participation in the SFSP: recruiting new

sponsors, expanding the number of sites that existing

sponsors operate, extending the duration of site programs, attracting more children to existing sites, and

reducing the number of sponsors that leave the program.

Staffs’ Views on Barriers and Outreach

Staff at the State, sponsor, and site levels provided

their views on the barriers to increasing participation

in the SFSP and on their outreach methods. Sponsor

and site staff also discussed their capacity for and

interest in expansion. Although staff’s views help 

identify issues or areas of concern, they should be

interpreted cautiously. For example, site supervisors 

or sponsors may believe that their programs meet 

local demand, when, in fact, family barriers or lack 

of awareness that sites exist keep additional children

from attending. In other cases, supervisors may be

concerned about barriers when, in fact, the area contains fewer unserved children than the supervisors

believe are there.

State Agencies’ Views on Outreach

State administrators believed that recruiting new 

sponsors was challenging. Although 41 percent of State

administrators reported having inadequate numbers of

staff for outreach, almost all State agencies (91 percent)

worked with other organizations on outreach or 

publicity for the SFSP; about half (52 percent) worked

with nutrition or antihunger advocacy groups. Help

from partner organizations may have compensated to

some extent for the shortage of staff resources.

Thirty-three percent of State administrators cited personal contact as the most successful approach used to

recruit new sponsors — a higher percentage than 

mentioned any other approach. One-on-one meetings

enabled State agencies to respond to sponsors’ concerns about the complexities of managing the SFSP, 

to present the positive aspects of the program, and 

to provide assurance of assistance from the State.

Twenty-four percent of State administrators mentioned

outreach to school districts as their most successful

approach. State agencies often identified school districts in low-income areas that did not participate and

targeted them for recruiting efforts.

Sponsors’ Interest in Expansion

Many sponsors were not interested in expanding the

number of sites or the duration of their operations.

More than half (59 percent) of sponsors stated that

they were not interested in expanding the number of

sites they operated. The reasons varied: 38 percent of

these sponsors felt that their geographic area had a 

sufficient number of sites, 19 percent were not interested because they were a camp or single-site sponsor,

11 percent mentioned lack of staff, 10 percent mentioned lack of available locations for sites, and smaller

percentages cited other reasons. More sponsors operating open sites than other sponsors were interested in

expansion (53 percent versus 17 percent). Nearly

three-quarters of sponsors of open sites who were not

interested in expansion believed that the number of

sites in their area was sufficient.

Half the sponsors were not interested in extending 

the duration of their SFSP operations, 27 percent

reported that their program already ran all summer,

and 23 percent reported that they might be interested

in extending their program. Many sponsors were not

interested in staying open longer because their 

schedules were dictated by their activity programs 

(24 percent); external constraints (32 percent), such 

as having to vacate school sites so maintenance could 

be performed; staffing constraints (22 percent); or

financial constraints (20 percent).

Site Supervisors’ Views on Expansion

Site supervisors typically reported that they had the

capacity to serve additional children at their sites.

One-third estimated that they could serve more than 

50 additional children, and 48 percent estimated that

they could serve 1 to 50 additional children. Only 

18 percent reported that they were unable to serve

additional children. Site supervisors cited a range 

of barriers that might explain why children do not

attend, including lack of transportation (mentioned 

by 33 percent), lack of publicity about the program

(26 percent), limited hours (17 percent), children’s 

dislike of the food (16 percent), lack of or insufficient

numbers of activities (12 percent), and parents’

concerns about neighborhood safety (11 percent).

Sponsor Entry and Exit

For SFSP sponsorship to grow, it is important not only

to recruit new sponsors, but to minimize the exit of 

current sponsors. Some turnover unrelated to SFSP

Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out ✥ 9
policies is inevitable, however, as staff or priorities

change and sponsors periodically renovate their facilities or perform other temporary activities. Furthermore, some sponsors, particularly new ones, leave after

realizing that they have overestimated demand for the

program or their administrative capacity to operate it.

The study interviewers collected data on turnover in 

the SFSP to inform discussions of these issues.

The percentages of sponsors entering and exiting 

the program in 2001 were similar, as estimated from

State agency administrative data. In summer 2001, 

10 percent of sponsors were new. Half the new sponsors

were SFAs, and one-third were nonprofit organizations. New sponsors were smaller than continuing

sponsors, and fewer new sponsors than continuing

sponsors offered breakfast and supper.

Between summer 2000 and summer 2001, 8 percent 

of SFSP sponsors left the program. Former sponsors

were disproportionately small, new, or nonprofit

organizations. Inadequate reimbursement rates and

time-consuming paperwork were the main reasons that

former sponsors gave for leaving the SFSP; each reason was cited by about 45 percent of former sponsors.

Forty percent reported that low participation levels

were a contributing factor. Thirty percent of former

sponsors reported that another SFSP sponsor had taken

over some or all of their sites.

Meal Service

SFSP sites serve food in a variety of settings and facilities, such as outdoor shelters at parks; recreation centers

that have refrigerators but no cooking facilities; and

cafeterias at schools, universities, and residential camps.

The study examined how SFSP meals were served,

their nutritional content, and the extent of plate waste.

Meal Service Arrangements

In 2001, 76 percent of all sites served meals indoors.

More than two-thirds (70 percent) of sites served

meals in a serving line or food pickup line, and 80 

percent had access to refrigerators.

Most sites (81 percent) served more than 90 percent 

of their available meals on the day of the observation.

In general, 29 percent of the sites that had leftover

meals discarded all of them (sometimes because of

health regulations), 22 percent stored all of them, and

39 percent discarded some meals or parts of meals and

stored others; smaller numbers used other approaches

to handling leftovers (fig. 8). About 22 percent of site

supervisors reported that their site had run out of food

or meals during SFSP meal service at some point 

during the summer.

SFSP Meal Pattern Requirements

To ensure that sites serve nutritious meals, SFSP regulations specify a meal pattern that all non-SFA sponsors

must follow. The meal pattern specifies that SFSP

lunches include foods from the following food groups:

(1) milk, (2) a bread or a bread alternate, (3) two fruits

or vegetables, and (4) a meat or a meat alternate. It

also specifies minimum serving sizes for foods from

each food group.10

Instead of using the SFSP meal pattern, SFA sponsors

have the option of using the same system that they use

for the NSLP. The system may be a food-componentbased system similar to the SFSP meal pattern or a

10 Compliance with the SFSP meal pattern at breakfast is discussed in Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out–The

Summer Food Service Program: Final Report (E-FAN-03-001).

10 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out Economic Research Service/USDA
nutrient-based system, called “nutrient standard menu

planning,” which is based on nutritional analysis of

menus, rather than on specific food components. SFA

sponsors also may use “offer versus serve” (OVS),

which is intended to reduce waste by permitting children to refuse some items offered and still have the

meal count as meeting program requirements. Other

types of sponsors may not use OVS.

Because SFA sponsors may use other meal planning

approaches and/or OVS, compliance with the SFSP

meal pattern was assessed only for non-SFA sponsors.

Seventy-one percent of the SFSP lunches that non-SFA

sponsors served met all the meal pattern requirements

(fig. 9). Most lunches that fell short served all the

required components but did not meet the minimum

serving size for one of them. The meat/meat alternate

was the component most often served in an inadequate

amount; it was nearly always served, but 20 percent 

of lunches did not include it in the required minimum

serving size. Various factors, such as cooks’ measurement errors, food shrinkage during cooking, lack of

training on the requirements, or measurement errors

associated with the visual estimation and coding of

food portion sizes, may explain these findings.

Nutritional Standards Used To Assess Meals

The SFSP regulations do not specify nutritional goals

for the SFSP other than the meal pattern. This study

adapted the standards used in the school meals 

programs — the School Breakfast Program (SBP) 

and the NSLP— to evaluate SFSP meals. These

standards include the following:

• On average over a week, meeting one-fourth of 

the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) at

breakfast and one-third of the RDA at lunch for key

nutrients.11 Key nutrients specified in the SBP and

11 The RDA is the average daily nutrient intake level sufficient to meet

the nutrient requirements of nearly all healthy individuals in a particular

life stage and gender group (Institute of Medicine, National Academy of

Sciences, 2000). Standards for school meals are based on the 1989 RDAs.

Beginning in 1997, the Institute of Medicine gradually has been releasing

updated RDAs for specific nutrients based on the Dietary Reference

Intakes (DRIs). The DRIs include nutrient standards for RDAs and 

for Adequate Intakes (AIs), to be used when the available scientific 

evidence is insufficient to establish an RDA. In this study, the AI was

used as the nutrition standard for calcium, as an RDA for calcium is not

available. To evaluate whether SFSP meals met the RDA standard, the

mean nutrient content of meals served was compared with the RDA

standard for the two DRI age groups that most closely correspond to the

age range of most children in the SFSP (4 to 8 years and 9 to 13 years).

However, because DRIs for energy and protein were not available at the

time of the analysis, the means for these nutrients were compared with

the 1989 RDAs, which were defined for children aged 7 to 10 years.

Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out ✥ 11
NSLP regulations are energy, protein, vitamin A, 

vitamin C, calcium, and iron.

• On average over a week, providing 30 percent of 

calories or less from total fat and less than 10 percent

of calories from saturated fat, as recommended by 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.12

The average nutrient content of SFSP breakfasts and

lunches was compared with these standards to assess

how well SFSP meals were meeting the nutritional

needs of children.

Nutrient Content of Meals

On average, SFSP meals provided at least one-quarter 

of the RDAs for most key nutrients at breakfast (fig. 10).

Breakfasts fell slightly below the standard for energy,

providing an average of 21 percent of the RDA. The

mean levels of most other nutrients were substantially

above the standard. The nutrient patterns of SFSP

breakfasts reflect the fact that many of the observed

meals consisted of ready-to-eat cereals, milk, and 

100-percent fruit juice. These foods provided children

with energy and other key nutrients — fortified cereals

and grains contributed iron and vitamin A; milk

contributed protein, calcium, and vitamin A; and juice

contributed vitamin C.

Nutrient patterns in SFA- and non-SFA-sponsored breakfasts generally were similar. Mean energy in both groups’

breakfasts was below the RDA standard of 25 percent

(21 percent of the RDA in SFA-sponsored breakfasts

and 22 percent in non-SFA-sponsored ones). Means for

other key nutrients were above the RDA standard for

both SFA- and non-SFA-sponsored breakfasts.

On average, SFSP lunches provided at least one-third 

of the RDA for energy and for other key nutrients 

(fig. 11). Lunches provided average energy just equal

12 Results for other vitamins and minerals, sodium, cholesterol,

and fiber are discussed in Feeding Low-Income Children When

School Is Out–The Summer Food Service Program: Final Report

(E-FAN-03-001).

12 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out Economic Research Service/USDA
to the standard of 33 percent of the RDA. As at breakfast, other key nutrients were provided at levels above

the standard. More than 90 percent of lunch plates

included fruit, so it is not surprising that the meals’

vitamin C contributions were high. (For example, one

orange would provide both age groups with more than

100 percent of the RDA for vitamin C.) Milk and 

vegetables contributed vitamin A. Along with meats,

fortified breads and rolls provided significant amounts

of iron. Milk and dairy products helped the lunches 

to meet the standard for calcium for children in both

age groups. The average content of both SFA- and

non-SFA-sponsored lunches met the RDA standards

for energy and for other key nutrients.

On average, SFSP breakfasts exceeded the Dietary

Guidelines standard for saturated fat content, and

SFSP lunches exceeded the standard for fat and saturated fat (fig. 12). At the same time, the average fat

and saturated fat contents of SFSP meals were similar

to those reported for school breakfasts and school

lunches provided in elementary schools in 1998-99

(Fox et al., 2001).

Plate Waste

Plate waste is defined as foods that children select or

are served, but do not eat. It does not include either

leftover meals that are not served to children or food

wasted during meal preparation. In this study, it also

excludes foods left by children in a designated area,

known as a “share box,” which other children could

then take, but which were occasionally wasted. Share

boxes were available at 44 percent of the sites. The

extent of plate waste in the SFSP is important because

it affects the nutritional benefit that children obtain

from SFSP meals, as well as sponsors’ costs (and thus

their ability to operate the SFSP cost-effectively).

Although some wasted food on children’s plates is to

be expected, many factors may influence the extent of

plate waste: the children’s age, sex, and family background; their food preferences; the extent to which

Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out ✥ 13
they can choose or refuse specific foods; the serving

temperature of the foods; specific forms of preparation

or presentation, such as whether fresh fruits are cut up;

the time available for children to eat; how hungry they

are at meal time; the environment (including cleanliness, comfort, and air or room temperature); and the

site staff’s interactions with the children during meals.

Children wasted an average of about one-third of the

calories and nutrients they were served at both breakfast and lunch (fig. 13). However, this fraction varied

across sites and by foods. The children ate 11 percent

of meals completely, with no plate waste. Vitamin A

at lunch had the highest level of waste (53 percent),

which reflects a relatively high level of wasted vegetables (48 percent of serving weight wasted), particularly raw carrots (73 percent) and salads (66 percent). 

At lunch, 30 percent of milk served was wasted,

37 percent of fruit, and 39 percent of breads or bread

alternates not in mixed dishes. Waste was 32 percent

for mixed dishes and 36 percent for meats not part of

mixed dishes. The level of waste observed for specific

foods and food groups is similar to the level observed

in previous studies of children in the SFSP (Ohls et al.,

1988) and in the NSLP (Reger et al., 1996).

Conclusions

The study findings suggest several key SFSP challenges: (1) how to simplify the required paperwork

and the reimbursement structure without compromising program quality and integrity; (2) where to target

SFSP expansion efforts; and (3) how to increase meal

pattern compliance and improve the acceptance of

meals to reduce plate waste, yet maintain or improve

nutritional content.

Simplifying Program Administration

To safeguard program integrity and meal quality, SFSP

regulations require both careful documentation for

sponsor applications and claims and ongoing monitoring of site operations by State agencies and sponsors.

However, responses to a range of questions indicated

that many State and sponsor staff perceived the

detailed program rules and the complex reimbursement

procedures as burdensome, and some believed that

they could discourage program growth.

In 2001, FNS began experimenting with several

approaches to simplifying the reimbursement process.

A 14-State pilot project — targeted to States with low

SFSP participation rates — allows sponsors to combine

administrative and operating costs and to be reimbursed at a fixed reimbursement rate per meal, with

less paperwork. A second initiative, the “Seamless

Summer” waiver, allows SFAs to run communitybased summer feeding programs under the NSLP and

to receive the NSLP free rate (slightly lower than the

SFSP rate) for all meals served. Without the waiver,

SFAs have to follow SFSP rules if they serve children

during the summer in community-based programs.13

13 SFAs that serve only summer school students operate under

the NSLP and are reimbursed on the basis of the students’ mealprice eligibility status (free, reduced, or paid).

14 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out Economic Research Service/USDA
Studies of these initiatives will help to assess whether

the approaches should be adopted more widely.

Expanding Participation

USDA is developing a Web-based geographic information systems tool, based partly on data collected in this

study on locations of sponsors and sites, to help State

agencies and local groups identify underserved areas.

This tool will make it possible to target outreach

efforts more effectively.

At the same time, the views of State agency staff,

sponsors, and former sponsors suggest that, by themselves, better targeting and outreach are not enough.

Simplifying program administration through initiatives

such as those just described may also be important to

expand participation and reduce sponsor attrition. New

sponsors, nonprofit sponsors, and smaller sponsors

seem to have the most difficulty administering the program. Reimbursement rates may also affect sponsor

participation. Nearly half of former sponsors mentioned reimbursement rates as reasons for leaving the

program, and 72 percent of current sponsors did not

expect SFSP reimbursements to cover all of their costs.

Improving Meals and Reducing Waste

The findings on meal pattern compliance and on the

food and nutrient content of SFSP meals may guide

USDA in determining which changes in program

requirements and which kinds of assistance might help

sponsors provide meals that meet program requirements and nutrition standards. The findings on plate

waste suggest that sponsors should be encouraged to

consider children’s preferences, present meals in an

appealing way, and offer children choices, whenever

possible. The study findings also suggest that nutrition

education for sponsors’ staff, site staff, and SFSP participants may help improve menus, promote healthy

eating, and reduce waste. For example, nutrition education may teach sponsor and site staff to offer lower

fat options, and to offer fruits and vegetables in forms

that appeal to children. Nutrition education could

encourage children to eat more fruits and vegetables.

Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out ✥ 15
References

Fox, M.K., M.K. Crepinsek, P. Connor, and 

M. Battaglia. School Nutrition Dietary Assessment

Study—II (SNDA-II) Summary of Findings. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition

Service, April 2001.

Gordon, Anne, Ronette Briefel, Karen Needels, Nancy

Wemmerus, Teresa Zavitsky, Randy Russo, Tania

Tasse, Laura Kalb, Anne Peterson, and Darryl Creel.

Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out—

The Summer Food Service Program: Final Report.

E-FAN-03-001. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, February 2003. 

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences.

Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in Dietary

Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 2000.

Ohls, J., E. Cavin, E. Kisker, N. Chapman, and J.

Homrighausen. An Evaluation of the Summer Food

Service Program: Final Report. Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., July 1988.

Reger, Christina, Carol E. O’Neil, Theresa A. Nicklas,

Leann Myers, and Gerald S. Berenson. “Plate Waste 

of School Lunches Served to Children in a LowSocioeconomic Elementary School in South Louisiana.”

School Food Service Research Review, 20 (supplement

1996) 13-19.

U.S Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition

Service. “Summer Food Service Program.” Program

participation data. (www.fns.usda.gov/pd/sfsummar).

Accessed January 18, 2002a.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition

Service. “A Message from Eric M. Bost: Under

Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.”

(www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Summer/States/message).

Accessed February 25, 2002b.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Welfare Reform:

Effects of Reduced Reimbursements on the Summer

Food Service Program. GAO/RCED-99-20. 

December 1998.

16 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out Economic Research Service/USDA

Final Report
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Many at USDA made important contributions to this study. We would particularly like to 

acknowledge the helpful feedback and support that Jane Allshouse, our project officer at the 

Economic Research Service (ERS), provided throughout all stages of the project. Others at ERS 

who helped guide the study design and who commented on drafts of the report include David 

Smallwood, Betsy Frazao, and Joanne Guthrie. Staff at the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 

also made important contributions to the project. Anita Singh, from the FNS Office of Analysis, 

Nutrition, and Evaluation, and Linda Jupin, from the Child Nutrition Division, gave us feedback 

throughout the study. Linda Jupin also answered many technical questions about program rules 

or helped direct us to other sources. Susan Fouts and John Endahl, both of FNS, made valuable 

comments on the draft reports. Two other FNS staff, Joan Tressler and Jeff Derr, provided key 

program data. We also are grateful to the following FNS regional office staff, who helped 

promote the study to state agencies and sponsors, and helped us resolve problems with the data 

collection process: Sharon Bevan, Alan Crane, Dick Gilbert, Mary Gioiosa, John Hanna, 

Doraetta Mozon, and Ellen Wahlberg. 

We want to express our appreciation to the staff at SFSP state agencies, local sponsors, 

former sponsors, and sites who responded to the survey questions, provided lists of sponsors and 

sites, and permitted us to observe SFSP operations at local sites. Despite the substantial 

demands of participating in this study, all these individuals were enormously helpful and 

cooperative. 

Many hardworking, dedicated staff supported MPR’s data collection efforts, which were led 

by Laura Kalb. Milena Rosenblum, Laura’s assistant throughout the project, was a key factor in 

the study’s success. Milena worked on every phase of the data collection, from initial calls to 

states for sample lists, to quality assurance review for the sponsor surveys, to conducting many 

state interviews, to coordinating collection of lists for the Sponsor-Site Database. Donna 

Mikolajewski monitored project costs throughout the project. 

The sponsor survey was directed by Lindsay Crozier, with assistance from Barbara Schiff. 

Barbara also helped collect sample frame information, planned the field training, conducted state 

interviews, and monitored the survey of former sponsors. Theresa Boujada supervised telephone 

center operations for the surveys of sponsors and former sponsors. Bea Jones developed the 

Access databases that were key to tracking data collection for the study and the Sponsor-Site 

Database that was delivered to ERS. Bea also helped collect sample frame information and 

conducted state interviews. Neil DeLeon, Mark Dentini, Linda Gentzik, and Ron Palanca 

provided programming support for the surveys. Sue Golden and her staff performed yeoman 

work in data entry of sample frame lists, survey instruments, and, finally, lists of all 2001 

sponsors and sites (close to 40,000 records). 

Francene Barbour coordinated field efforts for the site visits, with help from Mike Haas, 

Adrienne Wilschek, and LaShona Burkes. They were responsible for sending a staff of 15 field 

interviewers to 38 states, helping them with travel arrangements, and dealing with any problems 

that arose. (Adrienne and LaShona also helped with the Sponsor Survey, and Adrienne later 
iv

conducted state interviews.) At Garcia Research Associates, a subcontractor to MPR, Steve 

Goodwillie coordinated Garcia’s field interviewers, who handled California site visits. 

The sampling efforts for the study were led by Anne Peterson, who built on design work by 

Michael Sinclair. Brenda Cox and Daniel Kasprzyk provided quality assurance review of 

sampling work. Miki Satake provided programming support in selecting the samples, and Darryl 

Creel programmed and documented the weights. 

Nutritional coding of the data was conducted by Kate Gilstad and Jennifer Cohen, under the 

supervision of Ronette Briefel and Teresa Zavitsky. 

Analysis of the data involved a large team, in addition to the authors. Jim Ohls reviewed the 

report and provided valuable advice throughout the study. Vatsala Karwe, Daisy Ewell, Laura 

Folks, Joshua Hart, Jocelyn Lewis, Lucy Lu, and Sherry McDonald provided programming 

support. Laura Berenson edited the report, greatly contributing to its readability. William 

Garrett coordinated report production. 
v 

CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

 I INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1 

A. THE SFSP ............................................................................................................... 1 

1. What Is the SFSP?........................................................................................... 1 

2. History of the Program.................................................................................... 7 

3. Participation and Participation Rates ............................................................ 11 

B. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................. 12 

C. STUDY DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES ......................................................... 15 

1. Study Design ................................................................................................. 15 

2. Data Collection.............................................................................................. 16 

D. PLAN OF THE REPORT ..................................................................................... 18 

 II PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS............................................................................. 19 

A. CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE AGENCIES .................................................. 20 

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF SPONSORS............................................................... 23 

1. Overview of Sponsors’ Characteristics ......................................................... 23 

2. Characteristics of Different Types of Sponsors ............................................ 29 

3. Changes in Characteristics of Sponsors Since 1986 ..................................... 32 

C. CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES......................................................................... 38 

1. Overview of Sites .......................................................................................... 38 

2. Comparison of Sites with School Sponsors and Sites with Nonschool 

Sponsors ........................................................................................................ 43 

3. Changes in Site Characteristics Since 1986 .................................................. 45 

D. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS......................... 48 

E. SITE SCHEDULING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES ............................... 51 
CONTENTS (continued) 

Chapter Page

vi

 III PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION............................................................................... 57 

A. STAFFING AND FUNDING ............................................................................... 58 

1. State-Level Staffing and Funding ................................................................. 59 

2. Sponsor Staffing and Funding....................................................................... 63 

3. State Payments to Sponsors........................................................................... 73 

B. SPONSOR APPLICATIONS ............................................................................... 77 

C. TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE................................................. 82 

1. State Training of Sponsors ............................................................................ 82 

2. State Technical Assistance to Sponsors ........................................................ 85 

3. Sponsor Training and Technical Assistance to Sites..................................... 91 

D. PROGRAM MONITORING ................................................................................ 94 

1. State Monitoring of Sponsors and Sites ........................................................ 97 

2. Sponsors’ Monitoring of Sites..................................................................... 101 

E. VENDOR/FOOD SERVICE MANAGEMENT................................................. 104 

1. Use of Vendors............................................................................................ 104 

2. Reasons Why Most Sponsors Prepared Meals............................................ 105 

3. Reasons Why Some Sponsors Contracted with Vendors............................ 105 

4. Selecting and Monitoring Vendors ............................................................. 109 

 IV PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND OUTREACH................................................. 113 

A. STAFFS’ VIEWS ON PARTICIPATION LEVELS.......................................... 114 

1. State Administrators’ Views on Participation............................................. 114 

2. Sponsors’ and Former Sponsors’ Views on Participation and Program 

Expansion.................................................................................................... 117 

3. Site Supervisors’ Views on Capacity Constraints and Barriers to 

Participation ................................................................................................ 123 
CONTENTS (continued) 

Chapter Page

vii

B. EFFORTS TO EXPAND THE PROGRAM....................................................... 126 

1. State Agency Outreach................................................................................ 126 

2. Sponsors’ Efforts to Increase Participation at Their Sites........................... 131 

3. Sites’ Efforts to Increase Participation........................................................ 137 

C. NEW SPONSORS .............................................................................................. 137 

D. SPONSORS THAT LEAVE THE PROGRAM ................................................. 141 

1. State Agencies’ Strategies to Promote Sponsor Retention.......................... 141 

2. Characteristics of Former Sponsors and Current Sponsors......................... 143 

3. Reasons Why Former Sponsors Left the Program ...................................... 146 

 V MEAL SERVICE ....................................................................................................... 157 

A. CHARACTERISTICS OF MEAL SERVICE .................................................... 159 

1. Meal Service Characteristics....................................................................... 159 

2. Disposition of Available Meals................................................................... 161 

3. Handling and Storage of Food .................................................................... 164 

4. Meal Order Adjustment and Transport of Food Prepared Off Site............. 166 

B. CONTENT OF MEALS SERVED..................................................................... 168 

1. Most Frequently Served Foods ................................................................... 168 

2. Food Preferences of Participants................................................................. 176 

3. Nonschool Sponsors’ Compliance with SFSP Meal Pattern....................... 179 

4. Nutrient Content of Meals Served............................................................... 186 

C. EXTENT OF PLATE WASTE........................................................................... 202 

1. Nutrients Wasted on Plates ......................................................................... 202 

2. Foods Wasted on Plates............................................................................... 210 

3. Reasons for Food Waste.............................................................................. 215 
CONTENTS (continued) 

Chapter Page

viii

 VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 217 

A. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................... 217 

1. Key Findings ............................................................................................... 218 

2. Issues for the Future .................................................................................... 219 

B. PARTICIPATION............................................................................................... 220 

1. Key Findings ............................................................................................... 220 

2. Issues for the Future .................................................................................... 221 

3. Future Research........................................................................................... 222 

C. MEAL SERVICE................................................................................................ 223 

1. Key Findings ............................................................................................... 223 

2. Issues for the Future .................................................................................... 224 

3. Future Research........................................................................................... 227 

REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 229 

APPENDIX A: DATA COLLECTION METHODS ................................................ A.1 

APPENDIX B: SAMPLING AND SAMPLE WEIGHTS.........................................B.1 

APPENDIX C: PROFILES OF SFSP SITES ............................................................C.1 

APPENDIX D: DETAILED TABULATIONS FROM THE 2001 

SPONSOR-SITE DATABASE........................................................ D.1 

APPENDIX E: NUTRIENT AND FOOD CODING ANALYSIS............................E.1 

APPENDIX F: SUPPLEMENTAL MEAL SERVICE TABLES .............................F.1 

APPENDIX G: SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES FOR CHAPTER III ......................... G.1 
ix 

TABLES 

Table Page 

 I.1 SFSP MAXIMUM PER-MEAL REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR ALL 

STATES EXCEPT ALASKA AND HAWAII, 2001 ............................................. 6 

 I.2 DATA COLLECTION FOR THE SFSP IMPLEMENTATION STUDY ........... 17 

 II.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE AGENCIES .................................................. 21 

 II.2 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF SPONSORS .......................................... 24 

 II.3 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF SPONSORS, BY TYPE OF 

SPONSOR ............................................................................................................. 30 

 II.4 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF SPONSORS, BY 

SCHOOL/NONSCHOOL SPONSOR .................................................................. 33 

 II.5 NUMBER OF SFSP SPONSORS, SITES, AND PARTICIPANTS, BY 

TYPE OF SPONSOR, JULY 1986 AND JULY 2001.......................................... 35 

 II.6 CHANGES IN SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF SPONSORS SINCE 

1986 ....................................................................................................................... 37 

 II.7 SELECTED SITE CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................ 39 

 II.8 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES, BY 

SCHOOL/NONSCHOOL SPONSOR .................................................................. 44 

 II.9 CHANGES IN SELECTED SITE CHARACTERISTICS SINCE 1986 ............. 46 

 II.10 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS......................... 49 

 II.11 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS IN 1986 

AND 2001 ............................................................................................................. 50 

 II.12 SITE SCHEDULE AND ATTENDANCE ........................................................... 52 

 II.13 FACTORS AFFECTING DAY-TO-DAY VARIATION IN 

PARTICIPATION AT SITE ................................................................................. 53 

 II.14 TRANSPORTATION TO SITE............................................................................ 54 

 II.15 CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES THAT PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION ...... 56 

 III.1 STATE-LEVEL STAFFING................................................................................. 60 
TABLES (continued)

Table Page

x

 III.2 STATE AGENCIES’ REPORTS ON THE ADEQUACY OF THEIR 

STAFFING, BY FUNCTION AND OVERALL.................................................. 61 

 III.3 CHANGES IN STATE AGENCY STAFFING.................................................... 62 

 III.4 STATE AGENCY FUNDING.............................................................................. 64 

 III.5 SPONSORS’ REPORTS ON THE ADEQUACY OF THEIR STAFFING, 

BY FUNCTION AND OVERALL....................................................................... 66 

 III.6 SPONSORS’ REPORTS ON SFSP REIMBURSEMENTS AND OTHER 

FUNDING SOURCES .......................................................................................... 69 

 III.7 EXPERIENCED SPONSORS’ COST-CONTROL STRATEGIES..................... 72 

 III.8 STATE AGENCIES’ VIEWS ON THE USE OF ADVANCE AND 

START-UP FUNDS.............................................................................................. 75 

 III.9 STATE ADMINISTRATORS’ VIEWS ON THE PILOT PROJECT.................. 76 

 III.10 PROCESSING OF SPONSOR APPLICATIONS ................................................ 80 

 III.11 SPONSORS’ COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION PROCESS..................... 81 

 III.12 STATE TRAINING OF SPONSORS................................................................... 83 

 III.13 NUMBER OF SPONSORS’ STAFF ATTENDING STATE TRAINING .......... 84 

 III.14 TOPICS COVERED IN STATE TRAINING OF SPONSORS ........................... 86 

 III.15 STATE ADMINISTRATORS’ PERSPECTIVE ON TOPICS GIVING 

SPONSORS DIFFICULTY DURING OR AFTER STATE TRAINING, 

BY SPONSORS’ EXPERIENCE.......................................................................... 88 

 III.16 AREAS OF STATE AGENCIES’ TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ....................... 89 

 III.17 SPONSORS’ VIEWS ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM STATE 

AGENCIES ........................................................................................................... 90 

 III.18 SPONSOR-PROVIDED TRAINING FOR SITE STAFF.................................... 92 

 III.19 SITE SUPERVISORS’ VIEWS ON TRAINING AND TECHNICAL 

ASSISTANCE FROM SPONSORS ..................................................................... 95 

 III.20 STATE AGENCIES’ REVIEWS OF SPONSORS AND SITES ......................... 98 
TABLES (continued)

Table Page

xi

 III.21 MULTISITE SPONSORS’ MONITORING OF SITES..................................... 102 

 III.22 SPONSOR TYPE, BY SELF-PREPARED AND VENDED MEALS............... 106 

 III.23 REASONS SPONSORS PREPARE MEALS RATHER THAN 

CONTRACT WITH A VENDOR....................................................................... 107 

 III.24 SPONSORS’ VIEWS ON ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF 

VENDORS .......................................................................................................... 108 

 III.25 VENDOR BIDS AND VENDOR MONITORING ............................................ 110 

 IV.1 STATE ADMINISTRATORS’ VIEWS ON WHY PARTICIPATION IS 

LOW .................................................................................................................... 116 

 IV.2 SPONSORS’ IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAIN BARRIERS TO 

INCREASED PARTICIPATION ....................................................................... 118 

 IV.3 SPONSORS’ INTEREST IN EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF SITES ......... 119 

 IV.4 REASONS FOR SPONSORS’ LACK OF INTEREST IN EXPANDING 

THE NUMBER OF SITES ................................................................................. 121 

 IV.5 SPONSORS’ VIEWS ON INCREASING THE LENGTH OF THE 

SUMMER SESSION........................................................................................... 122 

 IV.6 SITE CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS ON PARTICIPATION ............................. 124 

 IV.7 SITE SUPERVISORS’ VIEWS ON BARRIERS TO CHILDRENS’

PARTICIPATION AT SITE ............................................................................... 125 

 IV.8 STATE AGENCIES’ WORK WITH PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS............. 127 

 IV.9 STATE AGENCIES’ EFFORTS TO ATTRACT SPONSORS ......................... 129 

 IV.10 SPONSORS’ STRATEGIES TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION .................... 132 

 IV.11 FORMER SPONSORS’ EFFORTS TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION.......... 134 

 IV.12 SPONSORS’ WORK WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO PROMOTE 

AND SUPPORT THE SFSP ............................................................................... 135 

 IV.13 SITE SUPERVISORS’ VIEWS ON PUBLICITY EFFORTS ........................... 138 
TABLES (continued)

Table Page

xii

 IV.14 COMPARISON OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW AND 

CONTINUING SPONSORS............................................................................... 139 

 IV.15 STATE AGENCIES’ EFFORTS TO RETAIN SPONSORS ............................. 142 

 IV.16 COMPARISON OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF FORMER 

SPONSORS AND CURRENT SPONSORS ...................................................... 144 

 IV.17 STATE ADMINISTRATORS’ VIEWS ON WHY SPONSORS LEFT THE 

PROGRAM ......................................................................................................... 147 

 IV.18 REASONS FORMER SPONSORS CITED FOR LEAVING THE 

PROGRAM ......................................................................................................... 150 

 IV.19 CHANGES THAT COULD INDUCE FORMER SPONSORS TO 

RETURN TO THE PROGRAM ......................................................................... 153 

 IV.20 FORMER SPONSOR SITES PICKED UP BY ANOTHER SPONSOR........... 156 

 V.1 SELECTED MEAL CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................... 160 

 V.2 DISPOSITION OF AVAILABLE MEALS........................................................ 162 

 V.3 HANDLING AND STORAGE OF FOOD......................................................... 165 

 V.4 MEAL ORDER ADJUSTMENT AND TRANSPORT OF FOOD 

PREPARED OFF SITE....................................................................................... 167 

 V.5 FOODS MOST COMMONLY SERVED AT BREAKFAST, BY FOOD 

CATEGORY ....................................................................................................... 169 

 V.6 FOODS MOST COMMONLY SERVED AT LUNCH, BY FOOD 

CATEGORY ....................................................................................................... 171 

 V.7 FOOD PREFERENCES OF PARTICIPANTS, REPORTED BY SITE 

SUPERVISORS .................................................................................................. 177 

 V.8 MEAL COMPLIANCE AT BREAKFAST FOR NONSCHOOL 

SPONSORS......................................................................................................... 182 

 V.9 MEAL COMPLIANCE AT LUNCH FOR NONSCHOOL SPONSORS.......... 183 

 V.10 MEAN ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP 

BREAKFASTS AND COMPARISON WITH RDAs ........................................ 189 
TABLES (continued)

Table Page

xiii

 V.11 MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS 

SERVED ON A SINGLE DAY AT BREAKFAST ........................................... 190 

 V.12 MEAN ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP 

LUNCHES AND COMPARISON WITH RDAs ............................................... 192 

 V.13 MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS 

SERVED ON A SINGLE DAY AT LUNCH..................................................... 194 

 V.14 MEAN ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP SUPPERS 

AND COMPARISON WITH RDAs................................................................... 195 

 V.15 MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS 

SERVED ON A SINGLE DAY AT SUPPER.................................................... 197 

 V.16 MEANS FOR OTHER NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP BREAKFASTS 

AND COMPARISON WITH RDAs................................................................... 198 

 V.17 MEANS FOR OTHER NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP LUNCHES AND 

COMPARISON WITH RDAs ............................................................................ 199 

 V.18 MEANS FOR OTHER NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP SUPPERS AND 

COMPARISON WITH RDAs ............................................................................ 200 

 V.19 COMPARISON OF MEAN NUTRIENT PROFILES FOR SFSP MEALS 

AND SCHOOL MEALS..................................................................................... 201 

 V.20 MEAN AND PERCENTAGE OF NUTRIENTS WASTED AT 

BREAKFAST, BASED ON PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONS .................... 203 

 V.21 MEAN AND PERCENTAGE OF NUTRIENTS WASTED AT LUNCH, 

BASED ON PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONS ............................................. 205 

 V.22 MEAN AND PERCENTAGE OF NUTRIENTS WASTED AT SUPPER, 

BASED ON PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONS ............................................. 207 

 V.23 PERCENTAGE OF MOST COMMONLY SERVED BREAKFAST 

FOODS WASTED, BY FOOD CATEGORY .................................................... 211 

 V.24 PERCENTAGE OF MOST COMMONLY SERVED LUNCH FOODS 

WASTED, BY FOOD CATEGORY .................................................................. 213 

xv

FIGURES 

Figure Page 

 I.1 SFSP PARTICIPATION AND PROGRAM MILESTONES................................. 9 

 I.2 SFSP PARTICIPATION AND NSLP FREE OR REDUCED-PRICE 

PARTICIPATION, 1975 THROUGH 2001 ......................................................... 13 

 I.3 SFSP PARTICIPATION RATE............................................................................ 14 
1

I. INTRODUCTION 

The primary goal of the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is to provide nutritious 

meals to children in low-income areas when school is not in session. The program is intended to 

fill a gap in services for low-income, school-age children, who receive free or reduced-price 

school meals during the school year through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the 

School Breakfast Program (SBP). However, the SFSP always has served far fewer children than 

are reached by free or reduced-price NSLP lunches during the school year. 

Because the SFSP, which had expenditures of $272 million in fiscal year (FY) 2001, is one 

of the smaller child nutrition programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), it has not been studied extensively. However, growing interest in improving program 

operations and expanding participation has led USDA to commission a new study of the SFSP, 

known as the SFSP Implementation Study. This report presents the results of the SFSP 

Implementation Study, a descriptive study of the operations of the SFSP at the state and local 

levels. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), under contract to the USDA Economic 

Research Service (ERS), has collected nationally representative data to describe how the 

program works and how SFSP staff feel it could be improved. 

To help the reader understand the program and the issues considered in the study, this 

chapter first provides background information on the SFSP. It then describes the research 

questions, the study design, and the data sources used in the rest of the report. 

A. THE SFSP 

This section describes the SFSP and its history. It also provides a brief overview of trends 

in participation since the 1970s. 

1. What Is the SFSP? 

The SFSP was created to provide nutritious meals for children from low-income families, 

particularly those who live in low-income neighborhoods, when school is not in session. The 

program operates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. 

The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) provides federal funds to operate the SFSP, and 

states distribute the funds to local program sponsors, which are the organizations that carry out 

the day-to-day operations of the SFSP. Meals often are provided in conjunction with educational 

and/or recreational activities, such as summer school, sports, arts and crafts activities, and camp. 

a. Eligibility of Sponsors, Sites, and Children 

Sponsor Eligibility. Organizations eligible to sponsor the SFSP are public or private 

nonprofit School Food Authorities (SFAs—governing bodies of schools or school districts that 

offer the NSLP); public or private nonprofit residential summer camps; local, municipal, county, 
2

or state government units; public or private colleges or universities that participate in the 

National Youth Sports Program (NYSP)1; and other private nonprofit organizations. Private 

nonprofit sponsors include youth organizations (such as branches of the YMCA and Boys and 

Girls Clubs), religious organizations, social service agencies, and other community groups. 

Site Eligibility. Each sponsor operates one or more SFSP sites that serve meals to children. 

These sites may be school cafeterias, parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, and other locations. 

Two main types of sites operate under the SFSP: (1) “open” sites, and (2) “enrolled” sites. Less 

common types of sites are “camp” sites and NYSP sites. 

An open site must be located in a neighborhood in which at least 50 percent of the children 

live in households that have incomes at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. Meals 

served at open sites must be provided to children at no charge.2 Sponsors must use NSLP 

records from a local school (showing the percentage of children certified for free or reducedprice school lunches) or census block group records of household income to document the 

eligibility of open sites for the SFSP.3

At enrolled sites, at least 50 percent of the children who are enrolled at the site must live in 

households that are at or below 185 percent of poverty. However, sponsors are reimbursed for 

meals served to all children who are enrolled. To demonstrate their eligibility as enrolled sites, 

sponsors must collect either enrollment forms documenting the family income of participating 

children or NSLP records from local schools documenting the enrolled children’s eligibility for 

free or reduced-price meals. 

Residential summer camps may qualify as SFSP sites. Unlike enrolled sites, however, 

residential camps are reimbursed only for meals served to children from households with 

incomes at or below 185 percent of poverty, and they are not subject to the requirement that at 

least 50 percent of enrolled children be low-income. Documentation required to show children’s 

eligibility is the same as for enrolled sites. 

 1

The NYSP is a federally funded program that provides organized instruction in athletics to 

low-income children. 

2

A “restricted open” site is a new subcategory of open site. Attendance at a restricted open 

site initially is open to the broad community but is later limited by the sponsor for security, 

safety, or control reasons. For example, space limitations might require that a restricted open site 

serve only the first 100 children who arrive each day. Children must be served on a first-come, 

first-served basis at all open sites. 

3

According to current federal policy, sponsors should use NSLP records, if possible. As 

with the SFSP, eligibility for the NSLP is based on household income at or below 185 percent of 

the federal poverty level. Therefore, an open site can demonstrate SFSP eligibility if 50 percent 

of the children in the attendance area are eligible to receive free or reduced-price NSLP meals, 

and, as discussed in the text above, an enrolled site can demonstrate its eligibility for the program 

if 50 percent of the children attending the program are eligible for NSLP meals. 
3

NYSP sites serve children enrolled in National Youth Sports Programs. An NYSP site may 

qualify for the program (1) as an enrolled site, (2) by showing that attending children live in 

areas that would qualify for open sites, or (3) by providing written documentation that it meets 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) income eligibility guidelines for the 

NYSP.4

Children’s Eligibility. Children through age 18 are eligible to receive SFSP meals.5

 

Individuals older than age 18 may receive these meals if they have physical or mental disabilities 

and if they participate in special school programs for students with disabilities. 

b. Administrative Structure 

The SFSP operates on three administrative levels: (1) the federal FNS, (2) state agencies, 

and (3) local sponsors. Each level has unique roles and responsibilities. 

FNS. The FNS develops SFSP regulations and procedures and distributes program funds 

through its seven regional offices. Regional FNS offices fund state SFSP programs on the basis 

of annual state plans describing the size and scope of SFSP operations, provide technical 

assistance to states and sponsors, and monitor state programs. 

State Agencies. In most states, a state government agency—usually the state education 

agency that administers the school meals programs—administers the SFSP. State agencies are 

responsible for recruiting sponsors, approving sponsors’ applications, providing training and 

technical assistance to sponsors and sites, monitoring compliance with program rules and 

regulations, and handling claims for reimbursement. Many of these activities are seasonal, as the 

SFSP operates primarily during the summer.6

 Many state agency staff who work on SFSP work 

on other nutrition programs in the nonsummer months. 

When a state government has not assumed responsibility for administering the program, 

FNS regional offices manage the program and perform all the functions that state agencies would 

perform. In 2001, FNS regional offices administered the program only in Michigan and Virginia 

and for nonprofit and camp sponsors in New York. 

 4

DHHS is the primary grantor for the NYSP. To qualify for participation in the NYSP under 

DHHS rules, at least 90 percent of enrolled children must be at or below the federal poverty 

level. 

5

A state agency must approve a sponsor’s request to serve infants. If infants are served, the 

sponsor must use the Child and Adult Care Food Program’s (CACFP’s) meal requirements for 

infants. 

6

Some SFSP programs operate on a year-round basis. For example, schools using a yearround schedule may use the SFSP to feed children who are off-track (that is, who are on a 

scheduled school break) throughout the year. 
4

Sponsors. Program sponsors operate the SFSP at the local level and have direct 

responsibility for either purchasing or preparing meals and for monitoring program operations 

and food safety and quality. Sponsors must publicize their program; select meal sites; hire and 

train staff; arrange for the preparation or delivery of meals that meet the SFSP’s standards; 

monitor meal attendance levels; and maintain records and complete paperwork on costs, 

attendance, food served, and related matters. Under federal regulations, state agencies are 

required to make training available to sponsors, and to ensure that sponsors receive the training 

they need. 

Sponsors must submit SFSP applications to the state agency annually. After an application 

has been approved, the sponsor enters into an agreement with the state to provide services. 

States monitor sponsors’ compliance with program rules; serious violations may result in a 

sponsor’s termination or in the denial of its application for the next program year. States may 

also disallow meals for reimbursement purposes if the meals are not served according to program 

rules. 

Sponsors must train site supervisors on SFSP rules before their sites open. Site staff must 

serve meals to children in a way that meets program requirements; supervise the children while 

they eat; and accurately record the number of meals prepared or delivered, the number served to 

children as firsts and as seconds, and the number served to program staff. They also must follow 

appropriate procedures related to food safety and to storage or disposal of leftovers. (Meal 

pattern requirements, which are intended to ensure that SFSP meals provide good nutrition, are 

discussed in detail in Chapter V.) 

c. Funding 

The SFSP is funded through the USDA budget. Total federal expenditures on the program 

were $272 million in FY 2001 (Food and Nutrition Service 2002a).7

 The federal government 

funds state agencies for their costs of administering the program and also funds sponsor 

reimbursements. States are not required to match federal SFSP funds. 

State agencies receive SFSP state administrative funds (SAFs) to cover their administrative 

costs. The SAF amount is calculated on the basis of the total amount of program funds—

sponsors’ operating, sponsors’ administrative, and health inspection funds—properly payable to 

a state for the SFSP in the preceding fiscal year (7CFR 225.5[a][1]). A state receives 

administrative funding equal to (1) 20 percent of the first $50,000 in program funds, (2) 

10 percent of the next $100,000, (3) 5 percent of the next $250,000, and (4) 2.5 percent of any 

additional dollars in program funds that it received during the previous fiscal year. FNS may 

 7

Total federal expenditures include cash payments for meals served, sponsors’

administrative costs, the states’ administrative expenses, health inspection costs, and entitlement 

and bonus commodity costs. 
5

adjust the level of state administrative funding based on changes in program size since the 

previous year.8

Most sponsors are eligible to be reimbursed for the costs of serving up to two meals or 

snacks per child per day at their sites; sites that are residential camps or sites serving migrant 

children may receive reimbursement for up to three meals or snacks per child per day. Sponsor 

reimbursements cover two types of costs: (1) operational costs, including those associated with 

the purchase, preparation, and delivery or service of meals; and (2) administrative costs, 

including office expenses, administrative staff’s salaries, program management costs, and 

insurance. The amount of reimbursement that sponsors receive is the lesser of (1) actual net 

documented costs, or (2) the number of reimbursable meals served multiplied by the 

corresponding per meal reimbursement rates for operating and administrative costs. In addition, 

administrative cost reimbursements may not exceed the amount specified in the budget approved 

by the state agency. States may provide advance funding to sponsors to help cover costs until 

their reimbursement claims are paid, but these advances are deducted from later reimbursements. 

The SFSP operating reimbursement rate in 2001 was $2.23 per lunch or supper meal; 

breakfast and snacks were reimbursed at lower rates (Table I.1).9 Sponsors’ maximum per-meal 

reimbursement rates for administrative costs vary according to their location and/or method of 

meal preparation (Table I.1). SFSP meals may be prepared by the sponsor or delivered by a 

vendor; administrative reimbursements are lower for meals purchased from a vendor and served 

at urban sites. For example, the 2001 SFSP administrative reimbursement rate for a lunch or 

supper was $0.2325 per meal for rural sites and for urban self-preparation sites and was $0.1925 

per meal for urban vended sites. 

SFSP per-meal reimbursement rates (for administrative and operating costs combined) are 

higher than NSLP and SBP per-meal reimbursement rates for students who qualify for free meals 

(which include both operating costs and administrative costs in a single rate). The size of the 

difference depends on whether the SFSP sponsor receives the higher or lower administrative cost 

reimbursement rate, and whether the NSLP or SBP rates are those for an SFA in a highly 

disadvantaged area. For lunch, the maximum 2001 SFSP combined reimbursement rate per meal 

($2.4625) was about 17 percent higher than the NSLP reimbursement rate for free lunches for 

 8

As discussed in detail in Chapter III, states commonly supplement these funds with State 

Administrative Expense (SAE) funds, a pool of federal funds that is used for state agency 

administrative costs incurred in connection with other child nutrition programs, including the 

NSLP, SBP, Special Milk Program, and CACFP. These funds can be transferred to cover SFSP 

administrative costs that are not covered by SAF. 

9

Alaska’s and Hawaii’s rates are higher than those of the other states and territories. 
6 

TABLE I.1 

SFSP MAXIMUM PER-MEAL REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR ALL STATES 

EXCEPT ALASKA AND HAWAII, 2001 

(Dollars) 

 Administrative Rates 

Meal Operating Rate 

Self-Preparation or 

Rural Sites 

Other 

Sites 

Breakfast 1.28 0.1275 0.1000 

Lunch and Supper 2.23 0.2325 0.1925 

Snack 0.52 0.0625 0.0500 

SOURCE: Food and Nutrition Service (2002b). 

NOTE: Rates effective January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001. 
7

school year 2001-2002 in heavily low-income areas ($2.11).10 The higher reimbursement rates 

for the SFSP are one of several factors that affect whether SFAs decide to operate the SFSP or 

the NSLP during the summer.11 In the case of other types of sponsors, the higher rates reflect the 

fact that these sponsors are likely to have higher costs than are SFAs, especially if they do not 

provide food service year-round. 

2. History of the Program 

The SFSP began in 1968 as a pilot program aimed at providing meals to low-income 

children during the summer. It was authorized as a permanent program in 1975. Over time, 

changes in policy goals and concerns have led to revisions in the eligibility criteria for sponsors 

and sites, administrative rules and regulations, and levels of reimbursement. Participation has 

fluctuated accordingly. 

a. Late 1970s: Problems Led to Contraction 

When it was authorized, the SFSP provided funding to open sites located in areas in which 

at least one-third of children came from households with an income at or below 185 percent of 

the poverty level. Subsequently, fraud and abuses in program administration occurring during 

the mid-to-late 1970s were described in a series of findings by the U.S. General Accounting 

Office (GAO) and in the media (U.S. General Accounting Office 1977 and 1978). Some 

program operators were prosecuted. In addition to outright fraud, there were reports of high 

levels of food waste, poor-quality food, and failure to meet meal pattern guidelines. Most abuses 

involved large nonprofit sponsors. During the late 1970s, in response to concerns about fraud 

and abuse, administrative oversight of sponsors increased, sponsorship by nonprofit 

organizations was limited, and registration requirements for food service management companies 

were introduced (Food and Nutrition Service 2002c). The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

of 1981 went further by prohibiting private nonprofit groups (except private schools and 

residential camps) from serving as sponsors. In addition, for budgetary reasons, the Act 

 10The NSLP rate used applies to areas in which 60 percent or more of meals are served free 

or at a reduced-price. The maximum SFSP breakfast reimbursement is about 3 percent higher 

than the maximum SBP reimbursements for “severe needs” districts ($1.4075 for SFSP rural 

sponsors and self-preparation sponsors versus $1.37 for SBP severe needs districts). NSLP and 

SBP rates are from the Federal Register (2001). All rates discussed are for the contiguous 

United States. 

11Under current rules, SFAs may operate the NSLP during the summer for children in 

educational programs. They are reimbursed for these meals at the free, reduced, or paid rates, 

according to the children’s income levels. If they choose to participate in the SFSP instead, they 

must open their sites to all children and are subject to additional paperwork requirements, but 

they can then receive the higher reimbursement rate. The “Seamless Summer Initiative”

(discussed in Section I.2.d of this chapter) is testing changes in these rules. 
8

restricted eligible areas for open sites to those in which at least 50 percent of children came from 

households at or below 185 percent of the poverty level. 

These changes led to a decline in participation in the SFSP (Figure I.1). In 1976, before the 

changes went into effect, average daily attendance in July (the estimate of program participation 

used by FNS) was more than 3 million—the highest level of SFSP participation ever reported. 

By 1982, participation had dropped to fewer than 1.5 million children. 

b. Late 1980s and Early 1990s: Renewed Interest in Expansion 

Starting in the late 1980s, USDA worked with Congress and advocacy groups to reverse the 

decline in SFSP participation. At around the same time, FNS undertook a national evaluation of 

the SFSP (Ohls et al. 1988). The evaluation suggested that the program was operating without 

major problems. FNS increased outreach and technical assistance to potential sponsors and 

collaboration with nutrition advocates. In addition, a major nutrition policy advocacy group, the 

Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), undertook a campaign to expand the SFSP in 1991 

that has continued to the present. FRAC has published an annual report on SFSP participation 

since 1993, titled “Hunger Doesn’t Take a Vacation” (Food Research and Action Center 2002). 

Several pieces of legislation were passed to address the reduction in participation. In 1989, 

private nonprofit sponsors were allowed back into the program, subject to provisions for 

expanded state agency training and monitoring and with restrictions on their operations. A major 

objective of this action was to increase program coverage (Decker et al. 1993). Two studies 

conducted by MPR at this time found that the reentry of private nonprofit sponsors contributed 

significantly to an increase in the number of sponsors and sites between 1989 and 1991, as well 

as to an increase in program attendance and in the number of SFSP meals served (Decker et al. 

1990; and Decker et al. 1993). 

In 1994, special grants were established for sponsors’ start-up and expansion costs, which 

provided funds in addition to meal reimbursements. Some of the restrictions on private nonprofit 

sponsors were relaxed as well. For example, nonprofit sponsors operating in areas formerly 

served by school or government sites no longer were subject to a 1-year waiting period. 

c. The Late 1990s: Reimbursement Cuts and Streamlined Administration 

In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) 

mandated major changes to many social welfare programs, including cutbacks in the Food Stamp 

Program and in several child nutrition programs, one of which was the SFSP. PRWORA 

removed expansion of the SFSP as a stated program goal, reduced reimbursement rates and the 

number of reimbursable meals allowed per day, and eliminated start-up and expansion grants for 

sponsors. In a GAO study conducted shortly after the changes took effect, some sponsors 

reported that they had substituted less expensive foods for those previously served, reduced staff 

wages, and reduced the number of sites they operated (U.S. General Accounting Office 1998). 

The study also reported that, overall, the reductions in reimbursements had little effect on the 

number and characteristics of sponsors participating in the program or on the number of 
9

FIGURE I.1 

SFSP PARTICIPATION AND PROGRAM MILESTONES 

SOURCE: SFSP participation (Food and Nutrition Service 2002a); NSLP July participation is from 

unpublished data provided by the FNS Child Nutrition Division, May 7, 2002. 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

19751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001

Year

Participation

Problems led to 

increased 

sponsor 

oversight; 

nonprofit 

sponsors limited 

(late 1970s)

Nonprofit sponsors

prohibited; site eligibility

restricted (1981)

Nonprofit sponsors

readmitted (1989)

Grants established for

sponsors' start-up and

expansion costs (1994)

Reimbursement rates and

number of reimbursable

meals per day lowered; start-up

grants ended (1996)

Most remaining restrictions

on nonprofit sponsors removed;

applications and administrative

reviews for experienced

sponsors streamlined

(late 1990s)

Summer participation 

in the NSLP
10

participants. However, the GAO study examined the SFSP only during the first year after the 

changes took effect. 

During the late 1990s, most of the remaining restrictions on private nonprofit sponsors were 

removed.12 Changes were made to streamline application procedures for sponsors that 

successfully had participated in the SFSP during the prior year. Other changes focused state 

monitoring requirements on new sponsors, large sponsors, sponsors that had operational 

problems, and sponsors experiencing frequent staff turnover. The federal requirement for 

registering food service management companies was removed, thereby giving states discretion as 

to whether they continue this practice (Food and Nutrition Service 1998). 

d. Recent Federal and State Initiatives 

Currently, states and FNS have renewed their focus on how to increase the availability of 

summer meals to children in low-income areas (Food and Nutrition Service 2002d). Both FNS 

and the states are experimenting with new approaches to expanding the program. 

At the federal level, two initiatives began in summer 2001: (1) a pilot project, mandated by 

Congress, to simplify reimbursement rates in certain states; and (2) the Seamless Summer 

Feeding Waivers, an initiative designed to encourage school districts to serve more meals during 

the summer. In late 2000, Congress mandated a 3-year pilot project as part of the Richard B. 

Russell School Lunch Act (Public Law 106-554). The “14-state” pilot project, which began in 

summer 2001 (as this study went into the field), applies to sponsors in 13 states and Puerto Rico, 

jurisdictions which have low SFSP participation levels. One of the goals of the pilot is to test an 

approach to reducing paperwork for sponsors (Food and Nutrition Service 2002f). The pilot 

provides the maximum reimbursement rate to sponsors in these jurisdictions. It also removes the 

division between administrative and operating cost reimbursements; sponsors receive one 

reimbursement to cover all of their expenses, whether administrative or operating. Sponsors no 

longer have to track administrative and operating costs separately, or to report costs to the state 

agency. They earn “meals times rates,” which makes it easier for them to estimate the amount of 

funding they will receive. The pilot applies to most sponsors; however, it excludes private 

nonprofit sponsors that are not schools or residential camps. 

Another federal initiative—the Seamless Summer Food Waiver—seeks to encourage more 

school districts to serve more meals to children in low-income areas during the summer. Under 

this waiver, school districts use NSLP meal service and claims procedures to provide summer 

meal service to children aged 18 or younger at sites that meet SFSP criteria. School districts 

operating these waiver sites are subject to the less complicated administrative requirements of 

the NSLP. All meals served at the waiver sites are claimed as NSLP meals and are reimbursed at 

the NSLP free rate, including the allowance for commodities. Sponsors do not receive a separate 

 12Nonprofit SFSP sponsors continue to be limited to operating no more than 25 sites. 

However, the National School Lunch Act provides authority for FNS to approve waivers from 

this limit. 
11

administrative reimbursement for these meals. The seamless summer initiative began in 2001 

with initial waivers granted to five school districts (two in California and three in Florida). 

Starting in 2002, school districts nationwide may request a waiver through their state education 

agency to operate a seamless summer feeding program through summer 2004 (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 2002a).

Several states have implemented laws to require school districts in low-income areas to 

operate the SFSP; because these initiatives are relatively recent, however, little information is 

available on how they are working. Texas state law requires public school districts in which at 

least 60 percent of children are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals to sponsor the 

SFSP or to arrange for a sponsor in their enrollment areas. There is no minimum, however, on 

the number of days or the number of sites at which the program must operate. Furthermore, 

school districts may receive a waiver exempting them from this responsibility if they can 

demonstrate that the costs of running the program will exceed available funds, that renovations 

or construction in the district prevent them from operating the program, or that other extenuating 

circumstances exist. Texas also provides funds for outreach and for supplemental meal 

reimbursements. Missouri also has a mandate to operate the SFSP in high poverty areas of the 

state (Food Research and Action Center 2002). 

Six states in addition to Texas provided state funding for the SFSP in 2001 (Food Research 

and Action Center 2002).13 Some states provided supplemental reimbursements for all sponsors, 

some provided start-up and expansion grants, and some provided funding for outreach. 

3. Participation and Participation Rates 

At the time of its authorization as a permanent program in 1975, the SFSP served almost 

1.8 million children per day during the peak summer month of July (Figure I.1).14 In 1976, 

before the tightening of program regulations and of restrictions on nonprofit sponsors, 

participation rose to almost 3.5 million. By 1982, it had fallen below 1.5 million. Starting in 

1983, participation rose slowly but steadily, reaching 2 million children in 1993. Since then, 

despite declining slightly since 1999, participation has been relatively stable, hovering between 

2.1 and 2.2 million children. 

 13The states are California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and 

Washington. 

14FNS measures participation as average daily attendance reported by sponsors operating in 

July, the peak month for SFSP participation. State agencies collect these data and report them to 

FNS. Because the program does not track individual children who participate, it is not possible 

to determine the number of children who ever receive meals during the summer. 
12

Like the SFSP, the NSLP provides meals to children during the summer.15 NSLP 

participants are children attending summer school and on-track students at year-round schools. 

In line with national trends toward year-round schooling and increased requirements for summer 

school participation, summer participation in the NSLP has more than doubled during the past 

decade (see Figure I.1). Recently, NSLP participation rose from 1.06 to 1.14 million between 

July 1999 and July 2000, more than offsetting a small decrease in the number of children fed 

through the SFSP. Thus, recent decreases in SFSP participation do not necessarily reflect fewer 

children receiving summer meals through federal nutrition programs overall. Rather, they may 

reflect a redistribution in the number of children accessing specific meal programs.16

The difference between the number of children who participate in the SFSP and the number 

who participate in the free or reduced-price component of the NSLP during the school year

always has been large. For example, in 1999, an average of 15 million children from lowincome households received free or reduced-price NSLP lunches each month during the school 

year, whereas only 2.2 million received meals through the SFSP in July (Figure I.2). The ratio of 

SFSP participants to free or reduced-price NSLP participants, converted to a percentage, can be 

interpreted as an approximate participation rate in the SFSP among low-income children. This 

percentage was relatively stable between 1989 and 1996, varying only from 14.5 percent to 

15.8 percent (Figure I.3). It has been declining slightly but continually since then. In 2000, the 

participation rate was less than 14 percent for the first time since 1989. These recent decreases 

reflect both the slight decline in SFSP participation and an increase in school-year participation 

in the NSLP by low-income children. 

B. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

The main objective of this study is to describe the operations of the SFSP at the state, 

sponsor, and site levels, using nationally representative data. The specific research questions 

include: 

1. How does the SFSP operate at the state, sponsor, and site levels? Is the program 

operating as intended by current policy and regulations? What areas do staff believe 

are in need of improvement? 

 15The CACFP is another year-round nutrition program that serves meals to children in the 

summer. Average daily participation in the CACFP was approximately 2.65 million in 2001 

(including children and adults served in day care homes and in child care centers). According to 

data provided by the FNS Child Nutrition Division, participation levels in the summer are similar 

to those throughout the rest of the year, suggesting that the CACFP does not generally serve the 

school-aged children served by the NSLP during the school year. 

16As the Seamless Summer Food Waivers are implemented more widely, this redistribution 

may increase, which implies that it will be increasingly important to examine NSLP and SFSP 

participation jointly. 
FIGURE I.2 

SFSP PARTICIPATION AND NSLP FREE OR REDUCED-PRICE 

PARTICIPATION, 1975 THROUGH 2001 

SOURCE: SFSP program data (Food and Nutrition Service 2002a); NSLP program data (Food and Nutrition Service 2002e). 

NOTE: Data reflect 9-month averages for free or reduced-price participation in the NSLP (summer months are excluded) and July participation in the 

SFSP. Data for 2001 are preliminary.

13 0

8,000,0006,000,0004,000,0002,000,000

16,000,00014,000,00012,000,00010,000,000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Participants per Month NSLP SFSP
FIGURE I.3 

SFSP PARTICIPATION RATE 

(Number of SFSP Participants as a Percentage of Free or Reduced-Price NSLP Participants) 

SOURCE: SFSP program data (Food and Nutrition Service 2002a); NSLP program data (Food and Nutrition Service 2002e). 

NOTES: Data reflect July participation in the SFSP divided by 9-month averages for free or reduced-price participation in the NSLP (summer months are 

excluded). Data for 2001 are preliminary. 

14 50

353025201510

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Percentage
15

2. What factors affect participation by sponsors and children? What do program staff 

see as the most important barriers to participation? What efforts are they making to 

expand participation? What are the levels of entry and exit of program sponsors? 

Why do some sponsors leave the program, and how do their characteristics compare 

with those of sponsors overall? 

3. What is the nutritional quality of meals served, and what is the extent of plate 

waste? How are SFSP meals prepared and served? What are the foods served and 

portion sizes? How does the nutritional content of SFSP meals compare with relevant 

nutrition standards? What factors are associated with more nutritious meals and less 

waste? 

C. STUDY DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES 

This section provides an overview of the design of the SFSP Implementation Study, the data 

sources used, and the methods used to collect the data. Appendix A and Appendix B discuss, 

respectively, data collection in detail and the sample design and weights used in the study. 

1. Study Design 

ERS worked with MPR to design this study under a previous contract (Briefel et al. 2000). 

Key requirements of the design included nationally representative data on sponsors, former 

sponsors, and sites and the ability to link sponsor and site data. The final study design included 

the following components: 

• Telephone interviews with all SFSP state administrators 

• A mixed-mode mail/telephone survey of a national sample of sponsors 

• A telephone survey of former sponsors, defined as organizations that sponsored the 

SFSP in 2000 but not in 2001 

• Visits by interviewer-observers to a national sample of program sites sponsored by 

the programs in the sponsor sample, which included in-person interviews with site 

supervisors, structured observations of program operations, and coding of a random 

sample of meals served and plate waste 

The design for this study was influenced heavily by the last comprehensive national 

evaluation of the SFSP (also conducted by MPR), which collected data in 1986 (Ohls et al. 

1988). The study by Ohls et al. collected data at the state, sponsor, and site levels and 

demonstrated that on-site observers could collect data on the content of meals served and plate 

waste. Whenever appropriate, the results of the current study are compared with the 1986 data. 

In designing the current study, ERS asked MPR to consider the feasibility of studying 

factors associated with participation. The designs developed included (1) geocoding of the 

locations of SFSP sponsors and sites and geographic analysis of the characteristics of areas 
16

served and not served, and (2) a survey of families in areas served by SFSP sites that would 

include both participants and nonparticipants (Gordon et al. 2000). ERS decided not to pursue 

the participant-nonparticipant survey because of concerns about feasibility. ERS is planning a 

future study that will include the geographic analysis of data on sponsor and site addresses in 

relation to census poverty data, which will allow USDA to assess how well the SFSP is reaching 

areas in which low-income children live. 

2. Data Collection 

Data collection for this study took place during the spring, summer, and fall of 2001. The 

data collection for the study consisted of four surveys—a state administrator survey, a sponsor 

survey, a former sponsor survey, and a site supervisor survey—plus in-person observations of 

operations at a national sample of sites and a large effort to compile administrative data. 

Developing the sample frames for the study was a major undertaking. State SFSP agencies 

provided lists of year 2000 sponsors in spring 2001 and subsequently provided lists of new 2001 

sponsors and lists of sponsors that had left the program. These lists comprised the sample frames 

from which the samples of sponsors and of former sponsors were selected. After sponsors were 

selected for the sample, they were contacted and asked to provide lists of their sites; the lists 

became the sample frame for selecting the sample of sites to visit. The level of cooperation 

received at all levels was very high. 

Table I.2 describes the four surveys and the site observations. The table shows their mode 

of data collection, sample sizes, and response rates. To reduce respondent burden, all four 

surveys asked some questions about administrators’ problems or challenges as open-ended 

questions. However, because respondents generally mention only a few issues in response to 

open-ended questions—most often, the ones about which they feel strongly—responses to such 

questions likely provide lower bounds on the numbers of administrators who believe particular 

challenges or problems are important. Throughout this report, tables indicate when data reflect 

responses to open-ended questions. 

During the fall and winter of 2001, SFSP state agencies also provided MPR with detailed 

lists of all their 2001 SFSP sponsors and lists of each sponsor’s sites. These lists included 

addresses of sponsors and sites that have been geocoded for future analysis, as well as 

descriptions of basic program characteristics.17 The data collected on sponsors included the type 

of sponsor (school, government, residential camp, NYSP, other nonprofit), dates of operation, 

types of meals served, whether the sponsor was new to the program, and meal counts for each 

meal. The data collected on sites included dates of operation, types of meals served, an estimate 

of average daily attendance for each meal, and an indicator of whether the site was open or 

enrolled. These data, which represent a census of the SFSP as of summer 2001, have been 

compiled into a linked database, the “SFSP 2001 Sponsor-Site Database.”

 17Decision Demographics, Inc., under subcontract to MPR, geocoded the addresses in the 

database. 
17 

TABLE I.2 

DATA COLLECTION FOR THE SFSP IMPLEMENTATION STUDY 

Survey Mode of Data Collection 

Sample 

Size 

Response Rate 

(Percentage) 

State Administrator 

Census 

Telephone interview 54a 100 

Sponsor Survey Mail survey with telephone followup 126 96 

Former Sponsor 

Surveyb 

Telephone interview 131 89 

Site Supervisor 

Survey and Site 

Observations 

In-person interview and structured 

observations of site operations, participant 

characteristics, content of meals served, 

and plate waste 

162 95 

NOTE: See Appendix A for additional details on data collection. 

a

There are 54 state agencies to represent all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and the 

District of Columbia. The program in New York state is partly run by the State Department of 

Education and partly run by the FNS regional office, so both agencies were included in the 

survey. 

b

Former sponsors are defined as agencies that were SFSP sponsors in 2000 but not in 2001. 
18

D. PLAN OF THE REPORT 

Chapter II describes the SFSP at the state, sponsor, and site levels and its participants, based 

on data from the Sponsor-Site Database and the various surveys. It also considers how the 

characteristics of the program have changed since 1986, when data for the previous study were 

collected. 

Each of the next three chapters addresses one of the three research questions in turn. 

Chapter III describes how the program was administered at the state, sponsor, and site levels, as 

well as areas of program operations that staff believed could be improved. Chapter IV discusses 

participation and outreach, including staffs’ views on barriers to participation, the extent of 

outreach efforts, and the reasons why sponsors left the program. Chapter V describes the meals 

served in the SFSP, their nutrient content, and the extent of plate waste. Finally, Chapter VI 

summarizes the findings and considers issues for the future. 
19

II. PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS 

This chapter presents a statistical picture of the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) in 

2001 that covers the characteristics of the state agencies, sponsors, and sites that operated the 

program.1 The chapter also describes SFSP participants and discusses factors that may affect 

their participation. Many of the discussions compare the SFSP in 2001 with the program as it 

was 15 years earlier, when the last comprehensive study was undertaken. The highlights of the 

findings are: 

• Half the program was school-sponsored in 2001. School Food Authorities (SFAs—

the governing bodies of schools or school districts that operate the National School 

Lunch Program [NSLP]) comprised roughly half of all sponsors, ran about half of all 

sites, and served about half of all meals. The number of school sponsors operating in 

July almost tripled from 1986 to 2001, and their average daily attendance increased 

by 66 percent. 

• Government agencies (usually municipal recreation or social services departments) 

constituted 14 percent of sponsors, but they were the largest sponsors, on average, 

and served 31 percent of meals. Residential camp sponsors were about 16 percent of 

all sponsors but served only 7 percent of meals. Because the number of government 

and camp sponsors and the number of meals they served had changed little from 1986 

to 2001, these sponsor types are, proportionately, smaller parts of the program than in 

1986. 

• Nonprofit organizations, which have rejoined the program since 1986, represented 

18 percent of all sponsors in 2001. However, they generally are restricted in size to 

no more than 25 sites and served just 10 percent of all meals. 

• Sponsors that obtained meals from vendors comprised 18 percent of sponsors, but 

they operated 36 percent of sites and served 30 percent of meals. SFA vendors 

provided about one-third of vended meals, and private vendors provided 

about two-thirds. 

• Since 1986, the number of sites that provide breakfast and the number that stay open 

for longer than 6 weeks have increased. Almost all sites (93 percent) offered 

activities in addition to meals, and most (61 percent) were open for longer than 

6 weeks. About half of all sites served breakfast, and essentially all served lunch. 

 1

Appendix C provides a qualitative description of the SFSP, through in-depth profiles of 

nine sites selected to convey the wide variability in the program. Readers who are not familiar 

with the program may find that this appendix provides a feel for what it looks like on the 

“ground.”
20

• As in 1986, 58 percent of children served at SFSP sites were of elementary-school 

age. About 25 percent of those served were middle- or high-school age children; 

17 percent were preschoolers. 

• About one-third of sites provided transportation to at least some children. 

A. CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE AGENCIES 

In 2001, most states (42) administered the SFSP through their state education agency, which 

also administers the NSLP and the School Breakfast Program. In three cases (Michigan, 

Virginia, and nonprofit and camp sponsors in New York), the regional offices of the Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), administered the program 

(Table II.1).2 In nine states, a state agency other than the education agency administered the 

program (including departments of agriculture, health, and social services).3

SFSP state agencies administered programs that varied widely in scale. Eight state agencies 

had 20 or fewer sponsors, 31 state agencies had from 21 to 100 sponsors, and 15 had more than 

100. The number of sites that the state agencies were responsible for monitoring also varied 

widely. About two-thirds of the states had between 101 and 1,000 sites; a small group 

(15 percent) had 100 or fewer sites, and 12 states (22 percent) had more than 1,000 sites. 

The number of SFSP meals that were served in each state varied widely as well. In 22 states 

(41 percent), sponsors served 1 million or fewer meals in the summer of 2001. In most of the 

other states (44 percent), sponsors served between 1 million and 4 million meals. The sponsors 

in the state-run portion of the New York program (the largest “state”) served more than 

12 million meals. On average, 2.4 million SFSP meals were served per state in 2001. 

During the late 1970s, as part of efforts to improve program integrity, state agencies were 

required under federal regulations to register commercial vendors that provided meals to SFSP 

sponsors; the registration process included training vendors on SFSP rules and inspecting their 

facilities. The federal requirement was dropped during the late 1990s as part of efforts to 

simplify program administration. Although no longer mandated by FNS, about one-third of state 

agencies (17) still require private vendors to register in order to be eligible for SFSP contracts. 

 2

In 1986, in contrast, FNS regional offices administered the SFSP in one-third of the states 

(Ohls et al. 1988). 

3

The two New York agencies (the New York State Department of Education, which 

administers school and government sponsors, and the FNS Northeast Regional Office, which 

administers camp and nonprofit sponsors) are counted separately. Although Wyoming was not 

officially a regional-office-administered state in 2001, the FNS regional office assisted the 

Wyoming Department of Health. For 2002, Wyoming has changed its state agency to the 

Department of Education. 
21 

TABLE II.1 

CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE AGENCIES 

 Number of State 

Agencies 

Percentage of State 

Agencies 

Type of Agencya 

State education agency 42 77.8 

Other state agency 9 16.7 

FNS regional office 3 5.6 

Number of SFSP Sponsors in 2001b 

 

1 to 20 8 14.8 

21 to 50 13 24.1 

51 to 100 18 33.3 

101 to 150 9 16.7 

151 to 200 3 5.6 

 3 5.6 

Median 69 — 

Mean 81 — 

Number of SFSP Sites in 2001c 

 

1 to 50 4 7.4 

51 to 100 4 7.4 

101 to 250 13 24.1 

251 to 500 9 16.7 

501 to 750 7 13.0 

751 to 1,000 5 9.3 

1,001 to 1,500 6 11.1 

 6 11.1 

Median 412 —

Mean 657 —
TABLE II.1 (continued)

22 

 Number of State 

Agencies 

Percentage of State 

Agencies 

Number of SFSP Meals Served in 

Summer 2001c

 

<1 million 22 40.7 

1 to 2 million 14 25.9 

>2 to 4 million 10 18.5 

>4 to 8 million 4 7.4 

>8 to 12 million 3 5.6 

>12 million 1 1.8 

Mean (millions) 2.4 —

Number of States Continuing Vendor 

Registrationd 17 31.5 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: See the footnotes. 

a

Derived from state plans submitted to FNS and state contact information. 

b

Tabulated from SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

c

Preliminary estimates provided by the Child Nutrition Division, FNS (January 2002). These 

data reflect claims reported to FNS by state agencies for the months of May through September. 

d

Tabulated from SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

FNS = Food and Nutrition Service. 
23

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF SPONSORS 

Several sources of data on the characteristics of SFSP sponsors were collected for this study. 

The SFSP Sponsor-Site Database, compiled from lists of sponsors submitted by state agencies, 

provides a census of key characteristics. The information in the database makes it possible to 

examine the characteristics of each major type of sponsor.4 The Sponsor Survey is the source of 

more-detailed information on sponsors’ characteristics.5

 Data from both sources are presented 

here in two different ways: (1) to reflect the percentage of sponsors nationally with particular 

characteristics, and (2) to reflect the percentage of SFSP meals nationally served by sponsors 

with particular characteristics.6

To assess changes in sponsors’ characteristics over time, both FNS program data and 

comparisons of the data from the 2001 Sponsor Survey (or the Sponsor-Site Database) with 1986 

data from the report by Ohls et al. (1988) are used. The FNS data are essentially a census of the 

SFSP; however, they were collected only for SFSP sponsors and sites operating in July, so they 

understate the size of the overall program. Comparisons of data from the two surveys must be 

made with caution because of differences in data collection approaches and sample design in the 

two studies, and because both sets of estimates are subject to statistical sampling error; 

comparisons of the 1986 survey data and the 2001 census data are more reliable, as only one set 

of estimates is subject to sampling error. 

1. Overview of Sponsors’ Characteristics 

About half the 2001 SFSP sponsors were SFAs, and they served half the SFSP meals 

(Table II.2).7

 Only 14 percent of sponsors were government agencies, but these sponsors served 

31 percent of all meals in 2001, indicating that government agencies are larger than the average 

sponsor. Nonprofit organizations, National Youth Sports Programs (NYSPs), and residential 

 4

The database also can be used to examine other subgroups. Appendix D provides 

tabulations from the database on sponsor characteristics at the state and regional levels. Chapter 

IV compares new and continuing sponsors. 

5

Appendix D compares the census data from the Sponsor-Site Database and the Sponsor 

Survey data on key sponsor characteristics. As discussed in greater detail in Appendix D, the 

survey data were weighted to match key control totals from the Sponsor-Site Database. 

6

Using the census data, the first type of tabulation is based on unweighted tabulations of the 

data, with each sponsor receiving an equal weight, regardless of size. For the second type of 

tabulation, each sponsor is weighted by the total number of meals it served, so that larger 

sponsors are weighted more heavily than are smaller ones. For the survey data, a different set of 

sampling weights corresponds to each type of tabulation, but the underlying idea is the same. 

(See Appendix B for additional details on sampling weights.) 

7

According to responses to the Sponsor Survey, about 2 percent of sponsors were private 

schools. Thus, private school sponsors comprise a small portion of all school sponsors. 
24 

TABLE II.2 

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF SPONSORS 

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

Type of Sponsora 

School 48.5 — 50.9 — 

Government 14.2 — 31.4 — 

Camp/Upward Bound 16.4 — 6.8 — 

NYSP 3.5 — 1.4 — 

Nonprofit organization 17.5 — 9.5 — 

 

New Sponsora

 10.1 — 2.9 — 

 

Number of Years as Sponsorb

 

First year (new this year) 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 

2 to 5 41 (5.6) 16 (4.0) 

 57 (5.6) 82 (4.2) 

Unknown (but >1 year) 0 (0.4) 1 (0.7) 

 

Number of Sites Sponsoreda

 

1 49.6 — 10.8 —

2 to 5 27.1 — 12.4 —

6 to 10 9.1 — 8.0 —

11 to 50 11.6 — 24.2 —

51 to 100 1.5 — 9.3 —

101 to 200 0.8 — 12.4 —

201 to 300 0.2 — 6.9 —

>300 0.1 — 16.0 —

Median 2.0 — 34.0 —

Mean 8.1 — 205.5 —

 

Average Daily Attendanceb,c 

<100 31 (5.6) 4 (1.0) 

100 to 500 54 (5.7) 23 (4.4) 

501 to 1,000 7 (1.6) 11 (3.1) 

1,001 to 5,000 7 (1.4) 25 (5.8) 

>5,000 2 (0.5) 38 (9.2) 

Median 145 (20) 2,026 (1,779) 

Mean 687 (138) 35,631 (18,459) 
TABLE II.2 (continued) 

25

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

 

Total Meals Served During 

Summera,c

 

<1,000 5.6 — 0.1 —

1,000 to 2,500 14.2 — 0.8 —

2,501 to 5,000 19.2 — 2.3 —

5,001 to 7,500 11.7 — 2.4 —

7,501 to 10,000 8.9 — 2.6 —

10,001 to 20,000 17.5 — 8.3 —

20,001 to 100,000 18.5 — 26.8 —

 4.5 — 56.7 —

Median 7,285 — 153,365 —

Mean 29,858 — 1,160,433 —

 

Duration of Program (Calendar 

Weeks)a 

 

Missing 2.9 — 1.8 —

<2 1.4 — 0.1 —

2 to <4 11.8 — 2.3 —

4 to <6 24.3 — 8.1 —

6 to <8 26.6 — 23.6 —

8 to <10 22.4 — 46.2 —

10 to <12 7.1 — 10.7 —

≥12 3.3 — 7.1 —

Median 6.7 — 8.7 —

Mean 7.5 — 9.9 —

 

Site Eligibility Statusb 

All open 55 (5.2) 61 (7.4) 

All enrolled 11 (3.9) 5 (1.9) 

Combination of open and 

enrolled 13 (2.8) 24 (6.5) 

Camp or Upward Bound sites 19 (5.0) 8 (2.4) 

NYSP sites 2 (1.2) 2 (1.1) 

 

Presence of Special Sitesb

 

Any rural sites 56 (5.6) 30 (5.6) 

All rural sites 53 (5.6) 23 (5.1) 

Any migrant sites 9 (2.6) 10 (4.9) 

Any mobile sites 3 (1.4) 6 (2.4) 

Any sites that serve homeless 

children 8 (2.7) 14 (3.7) 
TABLE II.2 (continued) 

26

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

 

Meals Offered at One or More 

Sitesa

 

Breakfast 72.1 — 78.4 —

Lunch 98.4 — 99.7 —

Supper 20.7 — 13.7 —

Any snack 15.2 — 33.0 —

 

Type of Meal Preparationb

 

Self-preparation on site 63 (4.8) 26 (5.5) 

Self-preparation at central 

kitchen 14 (3.1) 16 (4.0) 

Self-preparation on site or at 

central kitchen 5 (1.7) 28 (9.0) 

SFA as vendor 6 (1.9) 10 (3.4) 

Private vendor 13 (3.8) 20 (6.1) 

Total Sponsors—Sponsor-Site 

Database 4,372 — — — 

Sample Size—Sponsor Survey 126 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey and Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

a

From the Sponsor-Site Database. These data are a census, so they have no standard errors. Sponsors with 

missing data were omitted from the tabulations. 

b

From the Sponsor Survey. Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. 

c

Average daily attendance was reported in the Sponsor Survey. Sponsors that served more than one meal were 

not instructed in any way on how to calculate average daily attendance, but most seem to have used either 

attendance at the meal serving the largest number of children or usual attendance for the activity program 

associated with the meal service. The measure does not adjust for differences in the number of days that 

programs are open. By contrast, the measure, total meals, counts every meal served during the summer. 

NYSP = National Youth Sports Program; SFA = School Food Authority. 
27

camps/Upward Bound programs comprised 37 percent of sponsors but served only 18 percent of 

the meals.8

Sponsors tend to be stable. As reported in the survey, 57 percent of all sponsors had been in 

the SFSP for longer than 6 years (and these sponsors served 82 percent of all meals). The lists 

provided by the state agencies indicate that 10 percent of the 2001 SFSP sponsors had not 

sponsored the SFSP in 2000; some of these sponsors may have offered the program in previous 

years. Based on the Sponsor Survey, only 2 percent of sponsors were new. Some of the lists of 

new sponsors that were used to select new sponsors for the survey were incomplete, so it is 

possible that new sponsors were underrepresented somewhat in the survey. In addition, sponsors 

that had not operated in 2000 but had operated in the past may not have reported themselves to 

be “new.”

In 2001, the SFSP had a few very large sponsors, and a large number of very small ones. 

This breakdown holds whether measured in terms of the number of sites, average daily 

attendance, or total meals served during the year. 

Most SFSP sponsors operated only a few sites. About half the sponsors had only 1 site, and 

86 percent had 10 sites or fewer. However, sponsors with 10 sites or fewer served fewer than 

one-third of all meals. By contrast, only 1 percent of sponsors operated more than 100 sites, but 

they served 35 percent of all meals. 

Another indicator of the wide dispersion in sponsor size is that most sponsors (85 percent) 

had daily attendance of 500 children or fewer, but sponsors that had more than 500 children 

attending per day served 74 percent of all meals.9

 A similar dispersion is evident in the number 

of meals served during the course of the summer. The majority of sponsors (60 percent) served 

10,000 meals or fewer. Although only 5 percent served more than 100,000 meals, these sponsors 

served 57 percent of all meals served.

Sponsors varied greatly in the duration of their SFSP programs, but the average program 

operated for 7.5 weeks. About one-quarter of programs were between 4 and 6 weeks in duration, 

one-quarter were between 6 and 8 weeks in duration, and one-quarter were between 8 and 

10 weeks in duration. The small group of sponsors (3 percent) that operated for 12 weeks or 

longer includes sponsors that operated year-round or almost year-round to serve off-track 

children in year-round school districts. 

 8

Upward Bound programs are federally funded educational programs for disadvantaged 

youths, which are operated by colleges or universities. Although they may be residential or 

nonresidential, they are grouped with residential camps in this report, as most state agencies use 

that classification. 

9

Average daily attendance measures the number of children eating at any time during the 

day. This measure counts children who receive several meals in a day only once; furthermore, 

the measure does not adjust for differences in the number of days that programs are open. By 

contrast, the measure, total meals, counts every meal served during the summer. 
28

More than half (55 percent) of sponsors operated only open sites.10 About 11 percent ran 

only enrolled sites, and another 13 percent ran a combination of open sites and enrolled sites. In 

general, sponsors that operated both types of sites were large; they served 24 percent of all 

meals. Nineteen percent operated residential camp sites (including Upward Bound sites), but 

they served only about 8 percent of the meals. These sponsors served a relatively small 

percentage of meals because they ran fewer sites than did other sponsors (as discussed in Section 

B.2.a). 

The majority (56 percent) of sponsors had at least one rural site, but these sponsors served 

just 30 percent of all meals. Most sponsors with any rural sites operated only rural sites; 

53 percent of all sponsors had only rural sites. Nine percent of sponsors had one or more 

migrant sites. These sites serve children from migrant worker families and are allowed to serve 

an extra meal. About 8 percent of sponsors reported having one or more sites that served 

homeless children. Mobile sites—sites located on a bus or van that moves among several 

locations—have been developed during the past few years. Three percent of sponsors reported 

operating at least one mobile site. 

Lunch is typically the primary meal at SFSP sites, and 98 percent of sponsors served this 

meal. Nearly three out of four sponsors (72 percent) had sites that served breakfast, but breakfast 

was not necessarily served at all these sponsors’ sites. About 21 percent of all sponsors had sites 

that served supper, but these sponsors served only 14 percent of all meals; most sponsors that 

serve supper are residential camps, which generally have only one site. Fifteen percent of 

sponsors ran sites that served snacks; these sponsors served about one-third of all meals. Some 

larger sponsors served snacks at only a few of their sites. 

Nearly two-thirds of sponsors (63 percent) prepared all their meals at their sites, but these 

sponsors served only 26 percent of all meals.11 By contrast, 14 percent of sponsors prepared 

meals for all their sites at central kitchens, and 5 percent prepared meals at some sites and 

delivered meals to other sites from a central kitchen. These two groups together served 

44 percent of all meals. Thirteen percent of sponsors obtained meals from private vendors, and 

6 percent obtained meals from SFAs (acting as vendors rather than as sponsors). Sponsors that 

used vendors served 30 percent of meals overall. 

 10Appendix A describes procedures used for resolving discrepancies between sponsor and 

site data regarding the open/enrolled status of sites. In general, sponsors’ applications were used 

when these data sources did not agree. 

11See Appendix A for a discussion of cleaning of sponsor and site data on meal preparation. 

In general, discrepancies in sponsors’ and site supervisors’ reports of meal preparation methods 

were resolved by consulting sponsors’ applications. Note also that some meals prepared in 

central kitchens may be warmed up or portioned out at the sites; for this study, sponsors that used 

this approach have been classified as using central kitchen preparation. 
29

2. Characteristics of Different Types of Sponsors 

The major types of sponsors—SFAs, government agencies, residential camps, NYSP 

sponsors, and nonprofit sponsors—offer very different types of programs. The Sponsor-Site 

Database provides a census of data on sponsors and enables one to consider how each sponsor 

type differs for a limited set of characteristics. Unfortunately, the survey sample is not sufficient 

to provide reliable data for each sponsor type. Thus, for some key variables obtained from the 

survey but not available in the census, comparisons are between school sponsors and nonschool 

sponsors. Much recent SFSP policy has focused on expanding the role of school sponsors, so 

these comparisons are also of great interest. 

a. Characteristics of Major Types of Sponsors, from the Sponsor Census 

In general, different sponsor types served different meals (Table II.3). Other than camps, 

school sponsors were the most likely group to serve breakfast (75 percent did so), perhaps 

because many have become accustomed to serving breakfast during the school year. By contrast, 

government sponsors were the least likely to serve breakfast; 47 percent served this meal. 

Suppers were largely served at camp sites, but some sponsors in every group served supper. 

School sponsors were least likely to serve supper; only 3 percent served this meal. 

Camp, NYSP, and nonprofit sponsors never operated large numbers of sites. In 2001, about 

85 percent of camp sponsors and about the same percentage of NYSP sponsors had one site; 

about three-quarters of nonprofit sponsors had five or fewer sites (Table II.3). Furthermore, no 

NYSP sponsor had more than 10 sites, and no camp, Upward Bound, or nonprofit sponsor had 

more than 50.12 Despite their small number of sites, however, some of these sponsors served a 

relatively large number of meals per site: their sites were relatively large, and most camp 

sponsors served three meals. 

Government sponsors generally were the largest sponsors overall, as they ran an average of 

21 sites and, on average, served the largest number of meals. (By contrast, schools ran an 

average of eight sites, nonprofit organizations, five sites, camps, one site, and NYSPs, one site.) 

School sponsors fell in the middle of the size range, on average; although a substantial fraction 

(42 percent) operated only one site, some school sponsors were very large. 

Camp and NYSP sponsors operated shorter programs, on average, than did other types of 

sponsors. Camp programs ran for an average of 6.6 weeks, and NYSPs ran for an average of 

5.3 weeks. (NYSPs almost always operated for 4 to 6 weeks.) By contrast, nonprofit sponsors 

operated programs with the longest average duration (8.9 weeks) and were most likely to operate 

programs that lasted 10 weeks or longer (20 percent did so). The average durations of school-

 12As noted in Chapter I, although regulations prevent nonprofit organizations from operating 

more than 25 sites, FNS may grant waivers from these regulations. According to the SponsorSite Database, 12 nonprofit sponsors nationally operated between 25 and 50 sites; none operated 

more than 50 sites. 
30

TABLE II.3 

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF SPONSORS, BY TYPE OF SPONSOR 

(Percentages) 

 School Government Camp NYSP Nonprofit 

Meals Offered 

Breakfast 75.4 47.0 98.3 66.9 59.6 

Lunch 98.1 98.6 98.9 95.4 98.0 

Supper 3.4 7.1 95.4 15.2 10.5 

Any snack 11.9 22.1 8.1 22.5 24.3 

Number of Sites 

 

1 42.3 32.1 84.5 85.4 44.2 

2 to 5 32.7 23.4 13.8 13.9 29.6 

6 to 10 10.6 11.1 1.1 0.7 12.6 

11 to 50 12.0 23.7 0.6 0.0 13.6 

51 to 100 1.7 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

101 to 200 0.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 

201 to 300 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 

>300 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Median 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 

Mean 8.2 21.5 1.3 1.2 4.8 

 

Total Meals Served 

<1,000 4.2 3.9 9.6 1.5 7.8 

1,000 to 2,500 12.7 11.8 24.0 2.0 13.4 

2,501 to 5,000 18.9 14.4 25.1 12.0 19.9 

5,001 to 7,500 12.7 8.6 12.2 6.7 12.0 

7,501 to 10,000 9.4 7.3 4.9 18.0 10.6 

10,001 to 20,000 19.2 13.6 12.7 47.3 14.6 

20,001 to 100,000 18.9 28.0 9.3 12.7 19.5 

≥100,000 4.1 12.6 2.1 0.0 2.1 

Median 7,892 11,664 3,899 11,373 6,783 

Mean 31,448 66,256 12,434 12,292 16,420 

 
TABLE II.3 (continued)

31 

 School Government Camp NYSP Nonprofit 

Duration of Program 

(Calendar Weeks) 

 

Missing 2.7 0.8 3.8 1.3 4.7 

<2 0.8 0.5 4.7 0.7 1.2 

2 to <4 20.4 2.7 5.9 0.0 3.2 

4 to <6 23.2 18.7 31.7 85.4 13.2 

6 to <8 26.9 33.0 24.0 11.3 26.1 

8 to <10 17.3 32.2 24.3 1.3 31.2 

10 to <12 4.9 9.0 4.6 0.0 15.3 

≥12 3.8 3.1 1.1 0.0 5.1 

Median 6.6 7.7 6.6 5.1 8.6 

Mean 7.3 8.3 6.6 5.3 8.9 

 

New Sponsor 9.9 6.1 5.0 7.3 18.7 

Total Sponsors 2,118 621 717 151 763 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

NYSP = National Youth Sports Program. 
32

sponsored programs and government-sponsored programs fell in the middle of this range 

(7.3 weeks and 8.3 weeks, respectively), and both sponsor types included sponsors with a wide 

range of durations. 

Ten percent of all sponsors were new in 2001; fully 19 percent of nonprofit sponsors were 

new. About 10 percent of school sponsors were new (which is proportionate to sponsors 

overall). Smaller proportions of government, camp, and NYSP sponsors were new. 

b. Comparison of School Sponsors and Nonschool Sponsors, from the Survey Data 

Almost all school sponsors (97 percent) prepared their meals themselves; nonschool 

sponsors were much more likely to rely on vendors (33 percent did so, compared with only 

3 percent of school sponsors; see Table II.4).13 Sixty-eight percent of school sponsors always 

prepared meals on site, and 30 percent made some use of central kitchens. Two-thirds of 

nonschool sponsors prepared their own meals either on site or at a central kitchen. However, 

22 percent of nonschool sponsors used private vendors, compared with only 3 percent of school 

sponsors. Eleven percent of nonschool sponsors used an SFA as a vendor. 

School sponsors were substantially more likely than nonschool sponsors to operate any rural 

sites (71 percent versus 42 percent), to operate only rural sites (68 percent versus 40 percent), 

and to operate migrant sites (18 percent versus 2 percent). One possible explanation is that, in 

rural areas, there may be few organizations other than school districts with the ability to serve as 

sponsors. School and nonschool sponsors did not differ significantly in their use of mobile sites 

or in whether their sites served homeless children. 

Although school sponsors generally were larger than nonschool sponsors, as measured by 

average daily attendance, the differences were not statistically significant. About one-quarter of 

school sponsors and about 36 percent of nonschool sponsors had fewer than 100 children attend 

per day. About half of both school sponsors and nonschool sponsors served 100 to 500 children 

per day. 

3. Changes in Characteristics of Sponsors Since 1986 

The last major study of the SFSP was undertaken in 1986 (Ohls et al. 1988), and it seems 

useful to assess how SFSP sponsorship has changed since then. This section compares the two 

periods, using FNS administrative data, and compares findings from survey and census data 

obtained in the current study with findings from survey data collected by Ohls et al. 

 13School sponsors may use private vendors if they do so for the NSLP and are continuing the 

same contract. 
33

TABLE II.4 

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF SPONSORS, 

BY SCHOOL/NONSCHOOL SPONSOR 

(Percentage of Sponsors) 

 School 

Sponsor 

Standard 

Error 

Nonschool 

Sponsor 

Standard 

Error 

Type of Meal Preparation 

Self-preparation on site 68 (5.7) 58** (7.6) 

Self-preparation at central kitchen 18 (4.9) 10 (4.1) 

Self-preparation on site or at central 

kitchen 11 (3.4) 0 (0.0) 

SFA vendor 0 (0.0) 11 (3.7) 

Private vendor 3 (2.7) 22 (6.6) 

 

Presence of Special Sites 

Any rural sites 71 (6.9) 42** (7.8) 

All rural sites 68 (7.2) 40* (7.9) 

Any migrant sites 18 (5.0) 2** (1.5) 

Any mobile sites 3 (1.8) 4 (2.5) 

Any sites that serve homeless 

children 6 (3.8) 9 (4.0) 

 

Average Daily Attendance 

<100 26 (8.2) 36 (8.4) 

100 to 500 56 (8.6) 52 (7.9) 

501 to 1,000 9 (3.1) 5 (2.0) 

1,001 to 5,000 8 (2.3) 6 (1.8) 

>5,000 2 (0.9) 1 (0.6) 

Median 177 (44) 116 (29) 

Mean 883 (250) 501 (130) 

Sample Size 61 — 64 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

SFA = School Food Authority. 

 *Significantly different at the .05 level, chi-squared test. 

**Significantly different at the .01 level, chi-squared test. 
34

a. Program Growth Overall and Among Sponsors of Different Types 

For many years, FNS has collected detailed SFSP program data from state agencies for the 

month of July, the peak month for the SFSP.14 The agencies are required to report their total 

average daily attendance in July (the sum of the average daily attendance at each sponsor), the 

number of sponsors of each major type, and the number of sites sponsored by sponsors of each 

major type. In collecting data for this study, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. found that the 

number of SFSP sponsors and sites operating for the entire summer was substantially larger than 

the number operating in July.15 Nonetheless, although the FNS data reflect the program only as 

it operates in July, they provide the only consistently available measure of trends in program 

characteristics, by sponsor type. 

Between 1986 and 2001, the number of sponsors and sites in the July SFSP program almost 

doubled, while average daily attendance increased by 40 percent, from 1.5 million to 2.1 million 

(Table II.5).16 School sponsors accounted for almost three-quarters of the growth in daily 

attendance. Nonprofit organizations and NYSP sponsors—categories that did not exist in 

1986—provided the rest.17 The number of government and camp sponsors and the number of 

meals these sponsor types served were essentially the same in 2001 as they had been 15 years 

before. 

According to the July data, the number of school sponsors almost tripled from 1986 to 2001, 

from 602 to 1,646. School sponsors as a percentage of all sponsors increased less—by 

12 percentage points (from 32 to 44 percent)—because, at the same time as the number of school 

sponsors grew, many sponsors in new categories (nonprofit organizations and NYSPs) also 

joined the program. Although the number of school sponsors tripled, average daily attendance at 

school sponsors increased 66 percent, from about 650,000 to 1.1 million, which implies that 

 14These data are collected as part of the “FNS-418” reporting forms submitted by state 

agencies each month to document meal reimbursements. FNS requires that the agencies provide 

additional data on their July forms on sponsors, sites, and average daily attendance. 

15See Appendix D for a comparison of data from the Sponsor-Site Database with FNS-418 

data. 

16The fact that most new sponsors were relatively small explains this difference. Unless 

granted a waiver, nonprofit organizations generally are permitted to run no more than 25 sites, 

and new school sponsors tended to be smaller school districts, because many of the larger school 

districts already were SFSP participants. Existing sponsors may have increased the number of 

their sites by adding smaller sites. 

17Some NYSPs participated in 1986 but were counted in other categories, most likely as 

camps. 
TABLE II.5 

NUMBER OF SFSP SPONSORS, SITES, AND PARTICIPANTS, 

BY TYPE OF SPONSOR, JULY 1986 AND JULY 2001 

 July 1986 July 2001 

Type of Sponsor 

Number 

of 

Sponsors Percentage 

Number 

of Sites Percentage 

Average 

Daily 

Attendance Percentage 

Number 

of 

Sponsors Percentage 

Number 

of Sites Percentage 

Average 

Daily 

Attendance Percentage 

School 602 31.6 4,957 30.9 653,142 43.6 1,646 43.9 14,023 44.8 1,082,894 51.7 Government 599 31.5 10,258 63.8 775,661 51.8 610 16.3 13,067 41.7 728,781 34.8 Residential Camp 703 36.9 853 5.3 69,976 4.7 651 17.4 872 2.8 71,044 3.4 NYSP 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 131 3.5 140 0.4 29,679 1.4 Other Nonprofit Organization 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 709 18.9 3,202 10.2 180,263 8.6 Total 1,904 100.0 16,068 100.0 1,498,779 100.0 3,747 100.0 31,304 100.0 2,092,661 100.0 

SOURCE: Data for 2001 were provided to Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. by FNS in January 2002. The 1986 data are from Table II.1 in Ohls et al. (1988) and 

were derived from FNS program data. Both sets of data are from the “FNS-418” reporting forms submitted to FNS by SFSP state agencies. 

NOTE: NYSPs were not recognized as an official sponsor category in 1986 but may have been counted in other categories. Nonprofit organizations were not 

allowed to participate in the SFSP in 1986. 

FNS = Food and Nutrition Service; NYSP = National Youth Sports Program. 

35 
36

much of the growth in school sponsors occurred in school districts that operate smaller Summer 

Food programs (as defined by average daily attendance).18

The number of government sponsors in July remained relatively constant (at about 600); as a 

percentage of all sponsors, however, this sponsor type decreased substantially (from 32 percent 

to 16 percent). Camp sponsors decreased slightly in number and substantially in percentage 

terms (from 37 percent to 17 percent). Although not permitted to participate in 1986, nonprofit 

sponsors represented 19 percent of all sponsors in 2001.19 (However, nonprofit sponsors served 

only 9 percent of children attending the SFSP on an average July day, another indication of the 

relatively small size of their programs.) NYSPs, which were not counted separately in 1986, 

represented 3.5 percent of all sponsors in 2001. 

b. Changes in Sponsor Characteristics 

Comparison of the 1986 sponsor survey data and the data from either the 2001 survey or the 

2001 Sponsor-Site Database reveals patterns of changes in the types of sponsors similar to 

patterns in the FNS data.20 The data discussed in this section reflect the program as it operated 

for an entire summer, not as it operated in July only. In 1986, sponsors were almost equally 

divided among government, school, and residential camp sponsors (Table II.6). In 2001, by 

contrast, only 14 percent of sponsors were government agencies, and only 20 percent were 

residential camps, Upward Bound programs, or NYSPs. School sponsors constituted 48 percent 

of all sponsors in 2001, and nonprofit organizations, 18 percent. The percentage distributions of 

sponsor types in the 1986 survey and in the 2001 Sponsor-Site Database are thus very similar to 

those obtained using the July data (compare back to Table II.5). 

Sponsors in 2001 were more likely than they were in 1986 to have from two to five sites 

(27 percent versus 15 percent). The percentage of single-site sponsors decreased from 

63 percent to slightly fewer than 50 percent. 

 18Based on the data in Table II.5, average daily attendance per school sponsor fell from 

1,085 in 1986 to 659 in 2001. 

19As discussed in Chapter I, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 prohibited 

private nonprofit sponsors (except for private schools and residential camps) from participating 

in the SFSP. In 1989, nonprofit organizations were again permitted to serve as sponsors SFSP. 

20Note that, because the census data are not subject to sampling error, comparisons of 1986 

survey data and 2001 census data are much more precise than are comparisons of survey data 

between the two points in time. Ohls et al. (1988) did not provide standard errors for their 

estimates, so it was possible only to approximate whether differences observed were statistically 

significant. Based on an estimated design effect of 2 for the study by Ohls et al., the differences 

discussed here are likely to be significant at the 95-percent level. 
37

TABLE II.6 

CHANGES IN SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF SPONSORS SINCE 1986 

(Percentage of Sponsors) 

 1986 2001 

Type of Sponsora 

School 32 48 

Government 31 14 

Residential camp/Upward Bound/ 

NYSPb 36 20 

Other nonprofit organizationb

 0 18 

 

Number of Sites Sponsoreda 

1 63 50 

2 to 5 15 27 

6 to 10 7 9 

>10 16 14 

Median 1.0 2.0 

 

Average Daily Attendancec 

<100 44 31 

100 to 500 31 54 

501 to 1,000 15 7 

>1,000 11 8 

Median 145 145 

SOURCE: The 2001 data are from the SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey, or the 

Sponsor-Site Database (2001). The 1986 data are from Table IV.1 in Ohls et al. 

(1988); the sample size for 1986 sponsors was 208. Survey data were weighted to be 

nationally representative. 

a

The 2001 data are from the Sponsor-Site Database, which is a census of 4,372 sponsors. 

b

NYSPs were not recognized as an official sponsor category in 1986 but may have been counted 

in other categories. Nonprofit organizations were not allowed to participate in the SFSP in 

1986. 

c

The 2001 data are from the Sponsor Survey (n = 125). 

NYSP = National Youth Sports Program. 
38

Average daily attendance was less likely to be very low or very high in 2001. Only 

31 percent of sponsors in 2001 had an average daily attendance of fewer than 100 children, a 

drop from the 44 percent in 1986. Similarly, only 15 percent of sponsors in 2001 had an average 

daily attendance of more than 500 children, compared with 26 percent in 1986. The percentage 

with an average daily attendance between 100 and 500 children increased 23 percentage points, 

to 54 percent in 2001. However, the median number of children served per day was 145 in both 

years. Thus, although the distribution of average daily attendance has narrowed, the middle of 

the distribution remained at the same point. 

C. CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES 

This section describes the SFSP at the site level. It then compares school-sponsored sites 

with other sites and compares sites in 2001 with sites in 1986. As with the data on sponsors, site 

data are weighted in two ways: (1) to show the percentage of SFSP sites nationally with 

particular characteristics, and (2) to show the percentage of meals served nationally by SFSP 

sites with particular characteristics. Most of the data describing sites were obtained from the 

interviews with site supervisors; in some instances, however (noted in the tables), the data reflect 

interviewers’ observations. 

1. Overview of Sites 

In 2001, schools sponsored about half of all SFSP sites (49 percent), and these sites served 

about half of all meals (Table II.7). Government agencies sponsored another one-third of sites 

(36 percent), and nonprofit organizations sponsored about one-eighth (12 percent). Residential 

camps, Upward Bound sites, and NYSP sites comprised about 3 percent of all sites but served 

10 percent of all meals; these sites generally were larger than sites run by other sponsor types, 

and, in the case of residential camps, they served three meals daily. 

Most SFSP sites (83 percent) were open sites (serving 79 percent of all meals).21 Only 

14 percent were enrolled sites, and the remaining 3 percent were either NYSP or residential 

camp/Upward Bound sites. Sponsors may use enrolled site eligibility to a limited extent because 

enrollment requires collecting income documentation from children (or obtaining eligibility 

status for free or reduced-price meals from their schools), and because schools are not permitted 

to operate enrolled SFSP sites that only serve summer school students. (They must operate the 

NSLP if they do not wish to open their sites.) 

Because many programs are sponsored by schools, it is not surprising that summer feeding 

most often takes place in public school buildings (usually, in cafeterias). In some areas, public 

schools may host sites sponsored by other organizations. Conversely, school sponsors 

sometimes operate sites that are not located in schools. Thirty-nine percent of sites (serving 

 21The site data did not measure whether sites were classified as migrant sites. Any migrant 

sites are counted as either open or enrolled. 
39

TABLE II.7 

SELECTED SITE CHARACTERISTICS 

 Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

Sponsor Type 

School 49 (7.5) 53 (8.1) 

Government 36 (7.7) 27 (7.1) 

Residential camp/Upward 

Bound/NYSP 3 (1.2) 10 (4.1) 

Other nonprofit organization 12 (3.6) 10 (3.0) 

Type of Site 

Open 83 (4.1) 79 (5.8) 

Enrolled 14 (3.8) 12 (4.0) 

NYSP >0 (0.2) 1 (0.5) 

Camp/Upward Bound 3 (1.2) 9 (4.0) 

Site Settinga,b 

Public school 39 (5.4) 46 (6.5) 

Playground/park (not at a 

school) 16 (4.0) 9 (2.4) 

Indoor recreational center 13 (4.3) 7 (2.2) 

Community center 11 (3.0) 8 (2.5) 

Religious organization 9 (2.7) 17 (5.8) 

Day camp 7 (2.6) 5 (1.7) 

Private school 5 (2.1) 11 (5.6) 

Home/apartment 4 (2.6) 3 (1.9) 

Playground outside on school 

grounds 4 (1.9) 4 (2.0) 

Private nursery school or day 

care center 4 (1.6) 3 (1.4) 

Native American reservation 

facility 2 (2.1) 1 (0.5) 

Residential camp 2 (1.1) 8 (4.0) 

Housing project 2 (1.8) 1 (0.6) 

Mental health center 2 (1.9) 1 (0.6) 

University/college 2 (0.7) 2 (0.8) 

Family service agency 1 (0.5) 1 (0.8) 
TABLE II.7 (continued)

40 

 Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

Number of Years Site Has Offered 

SFSP (n = 160) 

First year 8 (2.7) 6 (2.0) 

2 to 5 49 (4.6) 42 (5.3) 

≥6 37 (4.3) 47 (4.9) 

Don’t know 6 (1.9) 5 (1.7) 

Site Locationa (n = 161) 

Urban 51 (6.9) 47 (7.4) 

Suburban 24 (5.1) 27 (5.6) 

Rural 25 (4.8) 26 (5.5) 

Security Guard on Site 9 (3.4) 13 (5.7) 

Meals Served 

Breakfast 49 (5.8) 69 (6.4) 

Lunch 100 — 100 — 

Supper 5 (1.9) 12 (4.4) 

Any snack 19 (5.4) 21 (4.7) 

Type of Meal Preparation 

Self-preparation on site 31 (5.2) 49 (5.9) 

Self-preparation at central 

kitchen 33 (6.1) 22 (4.2) 

SFA as vendor 10 (3.7) 10 (3.5) 

Private vendor 26 (7.7) 20 (6.9) 

Average Daily Attendance, Lunch

(n = 157) 

1 to 20 7 (3.0) 3 (1.4) 

21 to 50 35 (5.1) 18 (3.7) 

51 to 100 30 (5.0) 23 (4.6) 

101 to 300 20 (4.0) 32 (5.2) 

>300 8 (2.8) 24 (6.0) 

Median 60 (7.4) 150 (33.5) 

Mean 110 (13.5) 229 (43.3) 
TABLE II.7 (continued)

41 

 Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

Activities Offeredb 

Educational/instructional 

activities 88 (2.9) 89 (3.1) 

Supervised free play 85 (3.2) 89 (3.0) 

Organized games or sports 76 (3.6) 79 (3.7) 

Arts and crafts 76 (4.8) 74 (5.3) 

Off-site field trips 67 (5.5) 72 (4.8) 

Swimming 52 (5.3) 55 (5.4) 

Supervised child care 49 (5.6) 53 (6.4) 

Job training for participants 23 (3.8) 28 (5.8) 

Cooking 22 (3.9) 27 (6.3) 

Religious activities 18 (4.2) 29 (6.5) 

Job training for adults 18 (3.4) 15 (2.9) 

Unsupervised free play 12 (3.6) 8 (2.5) 

Counseling/therapy 3 (1.9) 1 (0.6) 

Performing arts 2 (1.4) 2 (1.1) 

Community involvement 2 (1.3) 2 (1.3) 

Social skills or cultural training 2 (1.1) 2 (1.3) 

Other 6 (3.2) 3 (1.0) 

No activities 5 (2.3) 3 (1.6) 

Any Activities Other Than Free 

Play 93 (2.5) 95 (2.2) 

Sample Size 162 — 162 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Survey and Site Observations (2001). 

All data are from the interview except where noted. 

a

Interviewer observation. This measure of rural sites does not necessarily correspond to sites that 

receive the rural reimbursement rate. 

b

Multiple responses allowed. 

NYSP = National Youth Sports Program; SFA = School Food Authority. 
42

46 percent of all meals) were located in public schools, and another 4 percent were located on 

school grounds (in playgrounds). Sites were located in a wide variety of other settings as well, 

ranging from day camps (7 percent of sites) and residential camps (2 percent) to mental health 

centers (2 percent) and Native American reservation facilities (2 percent). After public schools, 

the most common settings were nonschool playgrounds and parks (16 percent). Interestingly, 

9 percent of sites, serving 17 percent of all meals, were at religious organizations. The sites may 

have had faith-based sponsors, or they may have had other types of sponsors that rented space 

from a religious organization. 

Sites, like sponsors, tended to be stable. Most had been in the program for at least 2 years. 

Thirty-seven percent had served SFSP meals for 6 years or longer. 

As judged by interviewers, about half (51 percent) of the sites were located in urban settings, 

with the remainder evenly split between suburban and rural ones.22 Some rural sites were 

residential camps and may therefore have served children from urban areas. Nine percent of 

sites had an on-site security guard, indicating that safety may have been an issue.23

Nearly all sites (and every site visited) served lunch.24 Sites that offered breakfast—about 

half of all sites—served 69 percent of all meals. Only 5 percent of sites served supper, but 

12 percent of meals were served at these sites. These sites, many of which were residential 

camps, usually served three meals per day. Nineteen percent of sites served snacks.25

Almost one-third of sites (31 percent) prepared their meals on site; these sites served almost 

half (49 percent) of all meals. Another 33 percent received food from a central kitchen, but they 

served only 22 percent of meals. About one-quarter of sites received meals from a private 

vendor; these sites served 20 percent of all meals. The remaining 10 percent of sites (serving 

10 percent of meals) received meals from an SFA vendor. In recent years, FNS has encouraged 

nonschool sponsors to purchase meals from an SFA whenever possible (7CFR 225.15[b][1]), and 

nearly one-third of vended meals were provided in this way in 2001. The argument for 

promoting SFAs as vendors (when they are not sponsors) is that SFAs have both experience with 

 22Data on the percentage of sites classified as rural under SFSP rules were not available. 

However, the study examined the percentage of sites whose sponsors reported operating rural 

sites. About 23 percent of sites were definitely rural, as their sponsors reported operating only 

rural sites, and the sponsors of fully 33 percent of sites reported operating some rural sites. The 

true proportion of rural sites thus lies between these two figures. 

23Sites with security guards had either school or NYSP sponsors. 

24Based on the sites on which data were available in the Sponsor-Site Database, 98 percent 

of SFSP sites served lunch. However, data on meals served was missing for nearly one in five 

sites. 

25Some site supervisors may have reported snacks that were served but were not reimbursed 

through the SFSP. 
43

USDA meal requirements and the knowledge and facilities to prepare meals for children (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 2001). 

Although sites served anywhere from a few children to more than 1,000, about two-thirds 

served lunch to 21 to 100 children on an average day. Twenty percent of sites served lunch to an 

average of 101 to 300 children, accounting for 32 percent of all meals. Eight percent of sites 

served more than 300 children on an average day, and they accounted for almost one-quarter of 

all meals served by the program. 

In addition to providing meals, the sites offered a broad array of activities. Even excluding 

“free play,” nearly all the sites (93 percent) offered activities other than meals, ranging from 

swimming to counseling.26 Arts and crafts, educational activities, games and/or sports, 

swimming, and field trips were each available at more than half the sites. However, these 

activities were not necessarily available to all children attending the site; even at open sites, the 

activity programs (such as summer school or day camp) may have required formal enrollment. 

Children who did not enroll in a formal program may have had less incentive to attend a site 

solely to receive SFSP meals or may have felt uncomfortable doing so. Although some open 

sites provided activities on a “drop-in” basis, available data do not show which sites’ activities 

were open to all children. 

2. Comparison of Sites with School Sponsors and Sites with Nonschool Sponsors 

Sites with school sponsors and sites with nonschool sponsors had substantially different 

types of locations, types of meals served, and meal preparation methods. School-sponsored sites 

also were more diverse in size. 

Sites with school sponsors were much less likely than those with nonschool sponsors to be 

located in urban settings; however, these differences are not statistically significant. Almost 

two-thirds of sites with nonschool sponsors but only 38 percent of sites with school sponsors 

were in urban settings (Table II.8). Nearly one-third (31 percent) of school sites were in rural 

settings, compared with 19 percent of nonschool sites. 

Sites with school sponsors were far more likely than their nonschool counterparts to offer 

breakfast (64 percent versus 35 percent). The fact that schools are accustomed to providing 

breakfast during the school year may explain this difference. Perhaps because they can be 

reimbursed only for two meals, sites with school sponsors were less likely to serve a snack. 

 26Site supervisors reported the activities their site offered. 
44 

TABLE II.8 

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES, 

BY SCHOOL/NONSCHOOL SPONSOR 

(Percentage of Sites) 

School 

Standard 

Error Nonschool 

Standard 

Error 

Site Locationa 

Urban 38 (10.0) 63 (8.4) 

Suburban 31 (7.7) 18 (6.2) 

Rural 31 (7.6) 19 (5.4) 

Meals Served 

Breakfast 64 (8.2) 35* (7.0) 

Lunch 100 (0.0) 100 (0.0) 

Supper 3 (3.2) 6 (2.5) 

Any snack 6 (2.7) 32* (9.0) 

Type of Meal Preparation 

Self-preparation on site 44 (6.9) 19** (5.7) 

Self-preparation at central kitchen 56 (6.9) 10 (5.0) 

SFA as vendor 0 (0.0) 20 (7.0) 

Private vendor 0 (0.0) 51 (10.8) 

Average Daily Attendance, Lunch 

1 to 20 12 (5.5) 1** (1.2) 

21 to 50 21 (5.7) 49 (7.1) 

51 to 100 20 (5.7) 40 (6.5) 

101 to 300 32 (6.5) 8 (2.7) 

>300 15 (5.4) 1 (0.7) 

Median 94 (28.0) 50b (5.6) 

Mean 154 (24.0) 66** (5.6) 

Sample Size 78 — 84 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Survey (2001). 

a

Interviewer observation. This measure of rural sites does not necessarily correspond to sites that 

receive the rural reimbursement rate. 

b

Statistical test for difference in medians was not available. 

SFA = School Food Authority. 

 *Significantly different at the .05 level, chi-squared test or t-test. 

**Significantly different at the .01 level, chi-squared test or t-test. 
45

School sites prepared their meals on site or received them from a central kitchen.27 (About 

half used each method.) Only about 30 percent of nonschool sites prepared their own meals; in 

most cases, their sponsors purchased prepared meals from a private vendor (51 percent) or from 

an SFA (20 percent). 

Sites with school sponsors varied in size much more than did sites with nonschool sponsors; 

on average, the former also were larger. School sites were more likely than nonschool sites to 

serve fewer than 20 lunches per day (12 percent versus 1 percent) and were more likely to serve 

more than 100 lunches per day (47 percent versus 9 percent). On average, school sites served 

154 lunches daily; nonschool sites served 66 lunches daily. 

3. Changes in Site Characteristics Since 1986 

Changes in site characteristics since 1986 suggest that SFSP sites offered more meals in 

2001 than in the past. More sites offered breakfast in 2001 than in 1986. Overall, sites also 

remained open for more weeks.28

Sites were more likely to serve breakfast than in 1986 (49 percent in 2001 versus 34 percent 

in 1986) and were less likely to serve supper (5 percent versus 16 percent) (Table II.9). The 

growth in school-sponsored sites since 1986 partly may account for these changes, as school 

sites were more likely than nonschool sites to serve breakfast. The decline in residential camps 

as a percentage of total sites may account for the decline in sites serving supper. 

Sites were more likely to be located in a school setting in 2001 (44 percent in 2001 versus 

33 percent in 1986) and were less likely to be in a camp setting (10 percent versus 16 percent). 

The percentage of sites that were very small (an average of 20 or fewer in attendance at lunch) 

declined, whereas the percentage of sites that were medium in size (21 to 100 in attendance at 

lunch) or extremely large (more than 300 attending) increased. Sites also tended to be open 

longer. Sixty-one percent of sites were open for longer than 6 weeks in 2001, compared with 

42 percent in 1986.29

 27A small proportion of school sites had a private vendor on site to prepare the meals; these 

sites were coded as “vended” at the sponsor level, but as “on-site preparation” at the site level, as 

questions about delivery, adjusting food orders, and so forth, did not apply. See Appendix A for 

further discussion of this issue. 

28As noted in the discussion on sponsors in Section B.3.b, the report by Ohls et al. (1988) 

does not provide standard errors. Assuming an approximate design effect of 2 in the 1986 data, 

the differences discussed in this section would be statistically significant at the 95 percent level 

or above. 

29Data are not available on the average duration of site programs in 1986. 
46 

TABLE II.9 

CHANGES IN SELECTED SITE CHARACTERISTICS 

SINCE 1986 

(Percentage of Sites) 

 1986 2001 

Meals Served 

Breakfast 34 49 

Lunch 99 100 

Supper 16 5 

Any snack 25 19 

Site Settinga,b 

School (public or private) 33 44 

Playground/park (not at a school) 17 16 

Camp (residential or day) 16 10 

Indoor recreational center 14 13 

Community center 14 11 

Religious organization 11 9 

Housing project 5 2 

Playground outside on school grounds 1 4 

Other 8 13 

Average Daily Attendance, Lunchc

 

1 to 20 17 7 

21 to 50 24 35 

51 to 100 30 30 

101 to 300 25 20 

>300 5 8 

Duration of Service (Calendar Weeks) 

<2 4 0 

2 to <4 4 10 

4 to 6 50 29 

>6 42 61 

Open/Enrolled Statusd 

Open site 79 83 

Enrolled or camp site 21 17 

Sample Size 741e 162 
TABLE II.9 (continued)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

47 

SOURCE: The 2001 data are from the SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Survey and 

Site Observations (2001). All data are from the interview except where noted. The 

1986 data are from Table IV.4 and Table V.1 in Ohls et al. (1988). 

a

Interviewer observation in 2001; sponsor report in 1986. 

b

Multiple responses allowed. 

c

n = 157 for 2001 data. 

d

n = 535 for 1986 data, because these data were collected only for sites asked about in the 

sponsor survey. 

e

In the study by Ohls et al. (1988), characteristics of sites were collected in two ways. Sponsors 

were asked about the characteristics of one to three of their sites. In addition, site supervisors at 

visited sites were asked the same questions about their sites. Both sets of data were pooled in 

the analysis, resulting in the sample of 741 sites. 
48

In both 1986 and 2001, about 80 percent of sites qualified as open sites. This is one aspect 

of the program that has not changed. 

D. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS 

Because most SFSP sites are open to all children who wish to attend, the program does not 

systematically collect any data on the characteristics of participants. To provide an approximate 

picture of children served by the SFSP in 2001, site supervisors at the visited sites were asked to 

estimate the age, sex, and racial and ethnic composition of the children attending their sites. 

Weighting these data to reflect the number of meals that each site’s data represents made it 

possible to estimate the characteristics of children served by SFSP meals.30 These data reflect 

site supervisors’ impressions and should be viewed as approximate. Nonetheless, they provide 

the best picture available of the characteristics of SFSP participants. 

Based on site supervisors’ reports, the SFSP serves primarily elementary-age children. In 

2001, 58 percent of meals were served to children in this age group; another 20 percent were 

served to children of middle-school age (Table II.10). About 17 percent of meals were served to 

preschool-age children, and about 5 percent were served to high-school age children. Boys and 

girls were equally represented. 

Almost 39 percent of meals were served to African American children, 27 percent to 

Hispanic children, and 29 percent to white (non-Hispanic) children. A small percentage of meals 

were served to American Indian or Alaskan native children, Asians or Pacific Islanders, and 

children of other races. 

The distributions of SFSP participants in 2001 by age and sex were very similar to those 

observed in 1986, but the racial/ethnic distributions appear to be quite different.31 The 

percentage of meals served to African American children is estimated to have dropped from 

56 percent in 1986 to 39 percent in 2001 (Table II.11). Meanwhile, meals served to Hispanic 

children increased 7 percentage points, to 27 percent, and meals served to white (non-Hispanic) 

children increased 12 percentage points, to 29 percent. Although these trends are interesting, it is 

important to note that they may not be statistically significant; thus, they may represent sampling 

 30At many sites, some children attended only some of the available meals. The estimates 

assume that site supervisors were able to estimate the average characteristics of children 

attending, even with variation from day to day and from meal to meal. 

31In 1986, data on characteristics of participants at sites were collected from both sponsors 

(who were asked about three of their sites) and site supervisors (for sites that were visited), but 

the questions asked were comparable to those asked in this study. 
49 

TABLE II.10 

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS 

 Percentage of 

Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

Grade Level/Age 

 

Preschool 17 (2.2) 

Elementary-school age 58 (2.5) 

Middle-school or junior high-school age 20 (2.0) 

High-school age 5 (0.8) 

Sex (n = 159) 

 

Female 51 (1.9) 

Male 49 (1.9) 

Race/Ethnicity (n = 161)

 

African American or black, not Hispanic 39 (4.8) 

White, not Hispanic 29 (6.4) 

Hispanic 27 (3.4) 

American Indian or Alaskan Native 2 (0.8) 

Asian or Pacific Islander 3 (1.3) 

Other 1 (0.5) 

Sample Size 162 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: These data reflect site supervisors’ estimates and should be viewed as approximate. 

At many sites, some children attended only some of the available meals. The 

estimates assume that site supervisors were able to estimate the average characteristics 

of children attending, even with variation from day to day and from meal to meal. 
50 

TABLE II.11 

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS 

IN 1986 AND 2001 

(Percentage of Meals Served) 

 1986 2001 

Grade Level/Age 

 

Preschool 18 17 

Elementary-school age 58 58 

Middle-school or high-school age 23 25 

Age p18 1 — 

Sex

 

Female 50 51 

Male 50 49 

Race/Ethnicity

 

African American or black, not Hispanic 56 39 

White, not Hispanic 17 29 

Hispanic 20 27 

American Indian or Alaskan Native 5 2 

Asian or Pacific Islander 2 3 

Other — 1 

Sample Size 741a 162b 

SOURCE: The 2001 data are from the SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Survey 

(2001). The 1986 data are from Table IV.8 in Ohls et al. (1988). 

a

In the study by Ohls et al. (1988), characteristics of participants attending sites were collected in 

two ways. Sponsors were asked about the characteristics of participants at one to three of their 

sites. In addition, site supervisors at visited sites were asked the same questions about 

participant characteristics. Both sets of data were pooled in the analysis, resulting in the sample 

of 741 sites. 

b

Because of missing data, n = 159 for tabulations for sex, and n = 161 for race/ethnicity. 
51

variability, rather than a true change in the population.32 (Nationally, the percentage of poor 

children who were Hispanic increased from 1986 to 2000, the percentage who were African 

American stayed about the same, and the percentage who were white declined [U.S. Census 

2002].) However, the SFSP grew substantially between 1986 and 2001; it is possible it 

expanded more in areas of the country in which most low-income children are white and 

Hispanic. Additional research to explore this issue may be useful. 

E. SITE SCHEDULING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 

Key factors affecting participation at a site include the number of weeks and number of days 

per week that the site is open, the regularity with which children attend the site, and the degree of 

site accessibility via various means of transportation. In 2001, the majority (62 percent) of sites 

were open for 6 weeks or longer; 32 percent were open for 8 weeks or longer (Table II.12). Only 

10 percent of sites were open for fewer than 4 weeks. On average, sites were open just over 

7 weeks. Almost all sites (93 percent) were open for at least 5 days per week, including 

6 percent of sites (largely those at residential camps) open for 6 or 7 days per week. According 

to site supervisors, 82 percent of children attended their sites at least five times per week.33

Many factors can lead to variations in attendance from day to day (Table II.13). The factors 

most commonly cited by site supervisors were beyond the sites’ control; they included parents’

plans (62 percent), illness (47 percent), and weather (46 percent). One factor that SFSP sites can 

influence is transportation. About 24 percent of site supervisors reported that transportation 

problems influenced day-to-day attendance. 

Site supervisors reported that participants used diverse modes of transportation to reach 

SFSP sites (Table II.14). At about one-third of sites, at least some children were provided with 

transportation by the program. Supervisors estimated that 36 percent of children arrived via 

program-provided transportation. At most sites (82 percent), some children were dropped off by 

car; about 37 percent of children arrived by car. Given that SFSP sites are intended to serve their 

immediate neighborhoods, it is not surprising that most sites (72 percent) also served some 

children who walked or rode bicycles to attend; about one-quarter of children used these means 

to reach their sites. Very few children used public transportation to reach SFSP sites. 

 32Because we do not know the standard errors of the estimates from 1986, we cannot 

conduct a formal statistical test. However, the differences seem unlikely to be statistically 

significant. The estimates of meals served to African American and white children in 2001 have 

standard errors of 4.8 and 6.4, respectively. Thus, the 95-percent confidence interval for the 

percentage of meals served to African American children ranges from 29.1 percent to 

47.9 percent; it ranges from 16.3 percent to 41.3 percent for meals served to white (nonHispanic) children. 

33The estimate weighted by meals served gives the best estimates for the population of 

participants overall. 
52

TABLE II.12 

SITE SCHEDULE AND ATTENDANCE 

Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

Duration of Program 

(Calendar Weeks) 

1 to <4a 10 (3.1) 10 (4.5) 

4 to <6 28 (4.3) 25 (4.5) 

6 to <8 30 (5.7) 29 (5.9) 

8 to <10 26 (4.8) 27 (4.9) 

10 to <12 3 (1.4) 6 (2.8) 

≥12b 3 (1.6) 4 (1.7) 

Median 7.4 (0.4) 7.5 (0.5) 

Mean 7.1 (0.2) 7.2 (0.3) 

Number of Days Open per Week 

1 or 2 >0 (0.3) >0 (0.1) 

3 or 4 7 (2.4) 8 (2.8) 

5 87 (3.3) 82 (4.2) 

6 or 7 6 (2.7) 10 (4.1) 

Mean Percentage of Children 

Who Attend (Times per Week) 

<1 1 (0.9) 0 (0.2) 

1 or 2 4 (1.0) 3 (0.7) 

3 or 4 18 (2.6) 14 (2.5) 

p5 77 (3.0) 82 (2.9) 

Sample Size 162 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Survey (2001). 

a

The sample omitted sites open for less than 1 week. 

b

Includes some year-round sites. 
53

TABLE II.13 

FACTORS AFFECTING DAY-TO-DAY VARIATION 

IN PARTICIPATION AT SITE 

 Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Parents’ Plans/Vacation 62 (4.3) 

Illness 47 (4.7) 

Weather 46 (4.7) 

Transportation Issues 24 (5.2) 

Parents’ Motivation 19 (3.8) 

Whether Beginning, Middle, or End of Program/Summer 14 (2.8) 

Menu for the Day 13 (3.0) 

Activities Offered 12 (3.2) 

Day of the Week 12 (3.5) 

Time Commitments 8 (2.5) 

Timing of Food Stamps or Other Government Benefits 4 (1.9) 

Behavioral Issuesa 1 (0.8) 

Otherb 9 (3.1) 

Nothing 1 (0.6) 

Don’t Know 5 (3.0) 

Sample Size 157 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Multiple responses were allowed. 

a

Includes children’s motivation and behavioral problems. 

b

Includes holidays, lack of air-conditioning, unsafe neighborhood, children sometimes go to 

another camp. 
TABLE II.14 

TRANSPORTATION TO SITE 

 Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Nonrural Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Rural Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Some Participants Used This Form of Transportation to Reach Site 

Transportation provided by program 33 (5.1) 26 (5.5) 55 (8.0) Dropped off by car 82 (4.9) 80 (6.3) 88 (4.8) Walked or rode bicycle 72 (4.9) 77 (5.7) 57 (7.9) Public transportation 20 (5.1) 24 (6.3) 9 (5.1) Othera 4 (2.3) 1 (0.6) 13 (8.2) 

Percentage of Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served, 

Nonrural Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served, 

Rural Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Mean Percentage of Meals Served to Participants Who: 

Used transportation provided by 

program 36 (7.0) 28 (8.5) 60 (7.8) 

Were dropped off by car 37 (4.3) 38 (5.6) 30 (6.8) Walked or rode a bicycle 25 (5.9) 31 (7.4) 9 (2.2) Used public transportation 2 (0.8) 3 (1.1) 1 (0.3) Othera 0 (0.1) 0 (0.2) 0 (0.2) 

Sample Size 155 — 95 — 59 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Survey and Site Observations (2001). aIncludes horses, scooters, and skateboards. 

54 
55

Participants in rural areas were less likely than those in nonrural areas to live within walking 

distance of their sites and therefore were more likely to need transportation assistance (Table 

II.14).34 Only 9 percent of meals in rural sites were served to participants who walked or rode 

bicycles to the sites, compared with 31 percent in nonrural sites. Rural sites were much more 

likely than nonrural sites to provide transportation to at least some children; 55 percent of rural 

sites but only 26 percent of nonrural sites offered transportation. 

Compared with sites that did not provide transportation, sites that provided transportation 

were more likely to be school, camp, or NYSP sites and were more likely to offer enrolled or 

camp programs (Table II.15). This finding makes sense, as larger programs and programs that 

offer structured activities, such as summer school programs, day camps, or residential camps, are 

more likely to have the resources to offer transportation. At the same time, two-thirds of the 

sites that offered transportation to some children were open sites; however, these sites may 

include school sites that provided transportation only to those enrolled in the summer school 

program. Sites that offered transportation also were more likely to be in rural locations, as noted; 

41 percent of sites that offered transportation were rural, versus 17 percent of those that did not 

offer transportation. 

 34For the analyses in Tables II.14 and II.15, sites were classified as rural, urban, or suburban 

based on interviewers’ observations. For purposes of this discussion, both urban sites and 

suburban sites classified as “nonrural.” As discussed earlier, data are not available on whether 

specific sites qualified for rural SFSP reimbursements. If sites are classified as rural on the basis 

of their sponsor reporting operating any sites that qualify for rural reimbursements, results are 

very similar. 
56 

TABLE II.15 

CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES THAT PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION 

(Percentage of Sites) 

 Provide 

Transportation 

Standard 

Error 

Do Not Provide 

Transportation 

Standard 

Error 

Sponsor Type 

School 62 (8.0) 41** (9.6) 

Government 16 (7.5) 46 (9.7) 

Camp/Upward Bound/ 

NYSP 9 (3.5) 1 (0.5) 

Other nonprofit 13 (4.7) 12 (4.8) 

Type of Site 

Open 67 (8.0) 90* (4.2) 

Enrolled 24 (7.5) 9 (4.1) 

NYSP 1 (0.6) 0 (0.1) 

Camp/Upward Bound 8 (3.4) 1 (0.5) 

Average Daily 

Attendance, Lunch 

1 to 20 4 (4.2) 8** (4.0) 

21 to 50 18 (7.3) 44 (5.7) 

51 to 100 32 (6.5) 30 (6.6) 

101 to 300 26 (5.6) 16 (5.9) 

>300 19 (5.5) 3 (2.0) 

Site Location 

Urban 31 (8.3) 61** (8.1) 

Suburban 28 (6.9) 23 (6.2) 

Rural 41 (7.2) 17 (4.9) 

Sample Size 78 — 82 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Survey and Site Observations (2001). 

NYSP = National Youth Sports Program. 

 *Distributions are significantly different at the .05 level, chi-squared test 

**Distributions are significantly different at the .01 level, chi-squared test. 
57

III. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

One of the main objectives of the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) Implementation 

Study is to describe the operations of the SFSP at the state, sponsor, and site levels. The analysis 

in this chapter focuses on SFSP administrative activities.1 In particular, it examines whether the 

program is operating according to policy and regulations and describes program areas that state, 

sponsor, and site staff believe are in need of improvement. To provide data for these analyses, 

state administrators, sponsors, and site supervisors were asked a wide range of questions about 

their SFSP resources; their tasks, especially training, technical assistance, and monitoring; and 

their interactions with other levels of SFSP administration and, if applicable, with vendors. Key 

findings include: 

• Although most state administrators and sponsors reported that staff levels were 

adequate, significant minorities did not. Forty-four percent of state agencies and 

25 percent of sponsors believed they had inadequate numbers of staff for some 

activities. State administrators considered the application process to be an especially 

staff- and paperwork-intensive activity and were particularly likely to report having 

insufficient staff to process applications. Staff constraints also affected outreach 

activities. These constraints may hinder the success of FNS’s recent policy focus on 

program expansion. 

• Sponsors typically relied on their own resources or on other sources to supplement 

their SFSP funds. More than 70 percent reported that SFSP funds did not fully cover 

their costs. 

• The states reported providing extensive training and technical assistance to 

sponsors. Most sponsors found this assistance to be useful. However, about two out 

of every five sponsors would have liked additional technical assistance in at least one 

area. 

• State administrators and sponsors reported undertaking monitoring activities that 

were largely consistent with the extensive monitoring required by SFSP 

regulations. The state agencies reviewed about 94 percent of new sponsors and 

58 percent of experienced sponsors; they visited an average of 30 percent of the sites. 

About 84 percent of sponsors monitored all sites at least twice, and nearly threequarters reported that their visits always were unannounced. 

 1

Outreach to attract new sponsors and participants, although an important administrative 

activity, is largely covered in Chapter IV, which focuses on factors affecting participation. 
58

• Eighty-two percent of sponsors prepared the meals for their sites, often because 

they had the facilities and staff in place or because of cost considerations. About 

80 percent of the sponsors that used vendors were satisfied, but about half had some 

concerns about the quality or variety of the food. Eighty percent of sponsors that 

used vendors received only one bid for the contract. 

Section A presents the perceptions of the state agencies and of the sponsors about the 

adequacy of their staffs and funding. It also describes sponsors’ strategies to control their costs. 

Section B discusses the application process and sponsors’ suggestions for improving the process. 

Section C focuses on state training and technical assistance provided to sponsors and sites, and 

on similar types of sponsor-site interactions. Section D discusses program monitoring. Finally, 

Section E examines factors underlying sponsors’ choice between preparing meals for their sites 

or contracting with a vendor to do so. It also describes how sponsors monitor their vendors. 

A. STAFFING AND FUNDING 

Because state agencies play a key role in ensuring that sponsors and sites understand and 

correctly implement program policies, and that reimbursements for sponsors’ expenditures are 

appropriately disbursed, it is important to examine the resources the state agencies devote to the 

SFSP. Similarly, the sponsors’ resources help to determine whether they operate efficiently and 

in a way that encourages program participation. 

• The majority of state agencies and sponsors reported having enough staff to 

adequately perform their key tasks. However, 44 percent of state agencies and 

25 percent of sponsors reported they had insufficient staff for some tasks, especially 

outreach. 

• To fund their activities, most state agencies used SFSP state administrative funds 

(SAFs) or a combination of SAF and state administrative expense (SAE) funds; a few 

state agencies supplemented funding with state funds.2

• More than 70 percent of sponsors reported that SFSP funds did not fully cover their 

costs. About 60 percent of sponsors whose costs were not fully covered 

supplemented SFSP resources with their own funds. About 75 percent of experienced 

sponsors reported that they had used one or more strategies to control costs during the 

past few years. 

• Almost all state agencies (87 percent) provided advance payments to help sponsors 

start programs. Most of these agencies occasionally had problems administering the 

payments; in particular, they had problems recovering funds from sponsors that 

overestimated their costs. 

 2

SAE funds are federal funds provided to states to administer other child nutrition programs. 

States are permitted to use those funds for SFSP administration if necessary. 
59

• The 14-state pilot project that provides maximum reimbursement for sponsors’

combined administrative and operating costs may have helped some sponsors to 

cover their costs. Pilot state administrators were less optimistic than nonpilot state 

administrators about the pilot’s potential effects on program participation. However, 

the pilot states traditionally have lower SFSP participation rates relative to the 

nonpilot states and may face greater barriers to program expansion. 

1. State-Level Staffing and Funding 

State agencies employed an average of 13 staff who worked on the SFSP during the 

summer, and slightly more than half that many during the rest of the year (Table III.1). 

However, representing these staff as full-time equivalents (FTEs) reduces the number 

considerably, especially during nonsummer months, as many also work on other children 

nutrition programs, such as the National School Lunch Program or Child and Adult Care Food 

Program. 

Analysis of the ratio of state staff to sponsors shows that more than half the state agencies 

(56 percent) had less than one-tenth of an FTE per sponsor (that is, less than 1 FTE staff member 

per 10 sponsors) during the summer. The four states with more than one-quarter of an FTE per 

sponsor in the summer each had 50 sponsors or fewer, suggesting that states with more sponsors 

realize some economies of scale. 

Most state administrators (56 percent) reported that staffing was adequate, but 44 percent 

reported having an overall shortage of staff (Table III.2). Almost all (from 74 to 89 percent) of 

the state administrators reported having enough staff to provide technical assistance and training 

to sponsors, and to conduct claims review and processing. However, only about 60 percent 

reported having adequate staff for applications processing and outreach (including helping 

sponsors with outreach). Providing technical assistance to applicants and reviewing their 

applications are complicated processes that must be completed during a short time frame each 

spring, so it is not surprising that state agencies have high levels of demand for staff for these 

tasks. Outreach is in some sense an optional activity (although the Food and Nutrition Service 

[FNS] recently has reemphasized it), so it also is not surprising that more state administrators 

believed they had insufficient staff in this area than in other areas. 

In reviewing state agency staffing, it is important to bear in mind that most state agencies are 

part of state governments; thus, staffing decisions may be affected by state-level factors (such as 

state budget problems or reorganizations of state government) as well as by the levels of federal 

funding. According to almost half the state administrators, SFSP staffing levels had remained 

unchanged in recent years; 32 percent reported increases, however, and 22 percent reported 

decreases (Table III.3). Common reasons for increasing the number of staff were to fulfill 

specific functions and to provide better service. In some cases, staffing increases reflected 

program growth. Staffing decreases largely were related to organizational changes or unfilled 

vacancies. It seems possible that state agencies experiencing staff decreases may have more 
60 

TABLE III.1 

STATE-LEVEL STAFFING 

 Summer Rest of Year 

 Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

 Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Number of Staff Who Worked on 

the SFSPa 

 

0 0 0 1 1.8 

1 to 5 15 27.8 35 64.8 

6 to 10 17 31.5 10 18.5 

11 to 15 8 14.8 4 7.4 

16 to 20 5 9.3 2 3.7 

>20 9 16.7 2 3.7 

Mean 13.2 — 7.2 — 

Number of FTEs Who Worked 

on the SFSP 

 

b5 29 53.7 50 92.6 

6 to 10 13 24.1 4 7.4 

11 to 20 8 14.8 0 0 

21 to 50 3 5.6 0 0 

>50 1 1.8 0 0 

Mean 8.3 — 1.8 —

Number of FTEs per Sponsor 

Who Worked on the SFSP 

 

<0.1 30 55.6 53 98.2 

0.1 to <0.25 20 37.0 1 1.2 

0.25 to <0.5 2 3.7 0 0 

0.5 to <0.75 1 1.9 0 0 

0.75 to 1 1 1.9 0 0 

Total 54 — 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

These figures count equally staff who worked on the SFSP full-time and staff who worked on the SFSP part-time 

(and who may also have worked on other programs). 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
61 

TABLE III.2 

STATE AGENCIES’ REPORTS ON THE ADEQUACY OF THEIR STAFFING, 

BY FUNCTION AND OVERALL 

(Row Percentages) 

 Percentage of State Agencies 

Reporting Staffing Is: 

Function 

Adequate Inadequate 

Do Not Do/ 

Missing 

Technical Assistance for Experienced 

Sponsors 88.9 11.1 0 

Formal Training 85.2 14.8 0 

Claims Review and Processing 83.3 11.1 5.6 

Technical Assistance for New Sponsors 74.1 24.1 1.8a 

Monitoring of Sponsors and Sites 72.2 24.1 3.6b 

Vendor Management 64.8 3.7 31.5 

Application Process 61.1 38.9 0 

Outreach 59.3 40.7 0 

Health Inspections and Food Safety Issues 55.6 3.7 40.7c 

Overall Needs 55.6 44.4 0 

Total 54 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

One state agency administrator (1.8 percent) responded, “don’t know.”

b

The response of one state agency administrator (1.8 percent) is missing. 

c

Many state agencies contract with local health departments for health inspections. 
62 

TABLE III.3 

CHANGES IN STATE AGENCY STAFFING 

 Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

How SFSP Staffing in State Office Has Changed in 

Recent Years 

 

Remained the same 25 46.3 

Increased 17 31.5 

Decreased 12 22.2 

Main Reason for Staffing Increase (n = 17) 

 

Needed more staff for specific functions or to provide 

better service 7 41.2 

Program growth 5 29.4 

Staff pulled in from other programs 2 11.8 

Other 3 17.6 

Main Reason for Staffing Decrease (n = 12) 

Turnover and unfilled vacancies 3 25.0 

Functions transferred to another department/ 

reassignment of duties 3 25.0 

Staff cuts in agency 2 16.7 

Decrease in number of sponsors 1 8.3 

Other 1 8.3 

Don’t know 2 16.7 

If the SFSP Were to Grow Significantly, the Agency 

Would Needa

 

A lot more staff and resources 8 14.8 

A little more staff and resources 31 57.4 

Nothing—resources are adequate 14 25.9 

Don’t know 1 1.8 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

Significant growth was defined as growth of more than 10 percent. 
63

difficulty than others in expanding the SFSP to serve more children, particularly if the 

responsibilities of individual staff members have grown.3

Because FNS policy favors program expansion, the state administrators were asked whether 

they would need more staff and/or more resources to accommodate program growth of 

10 percent or more. About three-quarters reported that they would, suggesting that policies to 

expand the program may require additional funding for the state agencies to ensure the same 

level of program quality. 

As discussed in Chapter I, FNS provides SAFs for the administration of the SFSP through 

an administrative funding formula based on the program funds paid to the state in the previous 

year (7 CFR 225.5[a]). At least 57 percent of state administrators reported that the funds do not 

cover all their administrative costs (Table III.4).4 However, states are free to use SAE funds 

(state administrative expense funds for the other child nutrition programs) to make up the 

difference, and more than 80 percent of the state administrators whose agencies did not rely on 

SAF funds alone used SAE funds; current law allows states to use both the SAF and SAE 

funding streams as needed to administer the child nutrition programs. Five states used their own 

funds to cover the difference between their administrative costs and their SFSP allotments. 

Because states are not required to contribute their own funds to the SFSP, this action may 

indicate a particularly strong commitment to providing nutritious meals during the summer to 

children in low-income areas.5

2. Sponsor Staffing and Funding 

Understanding the administrative experiences of sponsors is important because sponsors are 

the organizations that carry out the day-to-day operations of the SFSP—ensuring that eligible 

community members are notified about sites; meals are nutritious and safe; and records on costs, 

attendance, food served, and related matters are maintained. For this reason, it is important to 

understand sponsors’ perspectives on the adequacy of their resources to administer the SFSP 

effectively. As discussed further in Chapter IV, sponsors’ resource constraints also may affect 

their interest in expanding or ability to expand participation. 

 3

States that had experienced staff decreases were more likely than average to report 

inadequate staff (58 percent did so), whereas states that had experienced increases were less 

likely to report inadequate staff (35 percent). 

4

This question does not pertain to three state programs run by FNS regional offices, because 

they receive their funding through another mechanism (see Chapter I). 

5

In 2001, seven states provided supplemental funding, usually targeted to increase meal 

reimbursements, encourage outreach, or facilitate start-up activities (Food Research and Action 

Center 2002). 
64 

TABLE III.4 

STATE AGENCY FUNDING 

 Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Federal SFSP Funds Covered All State 

Administrative Costs in 2001 

 

Yes 18 33.3 

No 31 57.4 

Don’t know 2 3.7 

Not applicablea 3 5.6 

If Not, Funds Used to Cover 

Difference (n = 31) 

 

SAE funds 25 80.6 

State funds 5 16.1 

Food Stamp Program funds 1 3.2 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

The three state agencies run by FNS regional offices are coded “not applicable” in this question 

and are excluded from the following question because their funding mechanism differs from that 

of the other state agencies. 

FNS = Food and Nutrition Service; SAE = State Administrative Expense. 
65

This section discusses sponsors’ perceptions of the adequacy of their staffing and 

reimbursements for SFSP costs. It also discusses strategies that experienced sponsors have used 

to control their costs. 

a. Sponsors’ Staffing 

Most sponsors thought they had adequate staffing for most activities (Table III.5). More 

than 90 percent of sponsors believed they had adequate staffing for claims processing, site 

monitoring, the application process, and formal training. A slightly smaller percentage felt they 

had adequate staff for outreach activities, such as promoting and publicizing the program 

(83 percent) and increasing participation at the sites (81 percent). Just half (52 percent) reported 

adequate staff for increasing the number of sites. Most of the remaining sponsors (38 percent) 

reported that they did not undertake any activities to expand their sites; most might have had no 

interest in doing so (see Chapter IV for a related discussion), but some might have been able to 

undertake activities if more staff were available. 

It is not clear why some sponsors reported that they “did not do” some essential SFSP 

functions, such as completing applications or meal service. They may have relied on staff from 

partner organizations or vendors for these functions. Single-site sponsors may not have to 

undertake such activities as finding site personnel because they use their own staff. 

Three-quarters of sponsors reported that staffing was adequate for all activities mentioned in 

the survey.6

 About 14 percent reported having inadequate staff for one or two activities; the 

remainder reported having inadequate staff for three or more activities. About 15 percent 

reported having a problem with employee turnover, another factor that could affect a sponsor’s 

ability to conduct its activities in a timely and efficient manner or to grow. 

b. Reimbursements of Sponsors’ Costs 

The sponsor survey asked sponsors for their best estimate of the proportion of their 

allowable SFSP costs that would be reimbursed by the state agency. Sponsors were interviewed 

for this study during the mid to late summer, and, at that time, they did not know precisely what 

their reimbursement would be; thus, they offered their best guess, often based on past 

experience. Although this study did not collect documentation on actual sponsor claims, it 

documents sponsors’ estimates of the extent to which their costs are reimbursed, both because 

they are likely to approximate actual experience and because they may influence sponsors’

decisions about whether to continue or expand their SFSP participation. Furthermore, sponsors’

 6

In computing this measure, sponsors’ reports that they did not perform an activity, such as 

managing vendors or increasing the number of sponsored sites, was counted as if staffing for the 

activity was adequate. Because some sponsors might consider performing an activity if they had 

more staff, the estimate of the percentage of sponsors with adequate staffing for all activities can 

be considered an upper bound on that percentage. 
66 

TABLE III.5 

SPONSORS’ REPORTS ON THE ADEQUACY OF THEIR STAFFING, 

BY FUNCTION AND OVERALL 

Function 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Claims Processing 

Adequate 97 (1.6) 

Inadequate 3 (1.5) 

Did not do 1 (0.7) 

Monitoring Sites 

Adequate 95 (2.5) 

Inadequate 5 (2.5) 

Did not do 0 (0.0) 

Application Process 

Adequate 94 (2.5) 

Inadequate 2 (1.3) 

Did not do 4 (2.1) 

Formal Training 

Adequate 92 (3.2) 

Inadequate 5 (2.7) 

Did not do 3 (1.7) 

Health Inspections and Food Safety Issues 

Adequate 90 (3.4) 

Inadequate 1 (1.1) 

Did not do 9 (3.3) 

Meal Service Arrangements 

Adequate 90 (3.1) 

Inadequate 3 (2.2) 

Did not do 8 (2.3) 

Technical Assistance to Sites 

Adequate 84 (4.2) 

Inadequate 4 (2.4) 

Did not do 11 (3.5) 

Finding and Recruiting Site Personnel 

Adequate 84 (4.4) 

Inadequate 7 (2.8) 

Did not do 9 (3.6) 
TABLE III.5 (continued)

67 

Function 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Promoting and Publicizing SFSP 

Adequate 83 (3.6) 

Inadequate 7 (2.4) 

Did not do 9 (3.3) 

Increasing Participation at Sites 

Adequate 81 (3.8) 

Inadequate 13 (3.1) 

Did not do 6 (2.1) 

Vendor Managementa 

Adequate 63 (5.6) 

Inadequate 2 (0.9) 

Did not do 36 (5.5) 

Increasing Number of Sponsored Sites 

Adequate 52 (5.3) 

Inadequate 10 (2.6) 

Did not do 38 (4.9) 

Transporting Food and/or Children 

Adequate 49 (5.5) 

Inadequate 5 (1.9) 

Did not do 47 (5.4) 

Staffing Adequate for All Activities 75 (4.8) 

Staffing Inadequate 

For 1 or 2 activities 14 (3.7) 

For ≥3 activities 11 (3.1) 

Employee Turnover Problem 15 (3.9) 

Sample Size 126 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTES: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. Because of missing data, 

sample sizes for individual items range from 121 to 126. 

 It is not clear why some sponsors reported that they “did not do” some essential SFSP 

functions, such as applications or meal service; see discussion in text. 

a

As shown in Table II.2, 19 percent of sponsors used vendors for the full meal. Some sponsors who 

reported that their staffing for vendor management was “adequate” may have interpreted the question as 

referring to vendors that supplied parts of meals or specific foods. 
68

reports are generally consistent with past studies, as discussed below. This consistency supports 

the credibility of their estimates. 

Collecting data on sponsor costs was complicated by the congressionally mandated pilot that 

began in 2001, as discussed in Chapter I. SFSP program rules dictate that sponsors are 

reimbursed separately for the administrative costs and operating costs of running the program. 

Under normal program rules, sponsors may not transfer costs from one category to the other. 

However, the pilot project allowed 14 state agencies to reimburse sponsors other than nonprofit 

sponsors for their combined administrative and operating expenses.7 These reimbursements 

were at the maximum rate. FNS hopes that this change in reimbursement policies will help 

increase program participation by making the program easier for sponsors to administer (Food 

and Nutrition Service 2002f). Because of the pilot project, sponsors in pilot states and sponsors 

in nonpilot states were asked somewhat different questions about their costs. 

Fewer than one-third of the sponsors reported being reimbursed for all their administrative 

and operating costs, but a majority were reimbursed for most (more than 75 percent) of these 

costs (Table III.6). In the pilot states, 39 percent of sponsors expected to be reimbursed for all 

their SFSP costs; in the nonpilot states, 47 percent of sponsors expected to be reimbursed for all 

their operating costs, and 35 percent expected to be reimbursed for all their administrative costs. 

Twenty-eight percent of all sponsors (those in pilot states and nonpilot states) expected to be 

reimbursed for all their SFSP costs, including both operating and administrative costs.8,9 

Sponsors in pilot states were somewhat more likely than those in nonpilot states to be reimbursed 

for most of their costs, as they always received the maximum reimbursement. Specifically, 

77 percent of sponsors in pilot states reported that they expected most (at least 75 percent) of 

their costs would be reimbursed. Sixty-one percent of sponsors in nonpilot states expected that 

most of their administrative costs would be reimbursed, and 70 percent expected most of their 

operational costs would be reimbursed. 

Past research also found that SFSP reimbursements tend to cover most, but not all, sponsor 

costs. In 1986, 35 percent of sponsors expected to be fully reimbursed for their operating costs, 

and 43 percent expected to be fully reimbursed for administrative costs (Ohls et al. 1988). 

However, 59 percent of sponsors expected to be reimbursed for at least 80 percent of operating 

costs, and the same percentage expected to be reimbursed for at least 80 percent of 

administrative costs. As in this study, these data reflect sponsors’ best estimates. In a 1998 

study, the General Accounting Office collected administrative data from state agencies on 

 7

See Chapter I for more details on this program. 

8

Some nonpilot sponsors expected to be reimbursed for all operating costs but not for all 

administrative costs, or vice versa, which results in a lower percentage expecting to be 

reimbursed for all costs. 

9

Sponsors who reported having inadequate staff for at least one activity were more likely to 

report that reimbursements did not cover their full costs (87 percent, versus 67 percent for other 

sponsors; n = 117). 
69 

TABLE III.6 

SPONSORS’ REPORTS ON SFSP REIMBURSEMENTS 

AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES 

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Sponsors in Nonpilot States 

Percentage of Administrative Costs State Agency 

Will Cover (n = 99) 

 

0 to 50 26 (5.9) 

51 to 75 13 (3.4) 

76 to 99 26 (5.8) 

100 35 (5.7) 

Percentage of Operating Costs State Agency 

Will Cover (n = 100) 

 

0 to 50 14 (5.3) 

51 to 75 17 (4.8) 

76 to 99 23 (5.4) 

100 47 (6.3) 

Sample Size 104 — 

Sponsors in Pilot States 

Percentage of SFSP Costs State Agency 

Will Cover 

 

0 to 50 6 (6.3) 

51 to 75 17 (9.0) 

76 to 99 38 (13.2) 

100 39 (12.3) 

Believes Sponsor Will Increase Number of Sites 

or Children Served in 2001 or Future, Due to 

Reimbursement Process Changes (n = 21) 60 (13.5) 

Sample Size 22 — 
TABLE III.6 (continued)

70 

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

All Sponsors 

 

Expects State Agency to 

Cover All Costs 28 (4.9) 

Sample Size 126 —

If Not Expecting All Costs to Be Covered, 

Sources to Cover Differences Between Actual 

Costs and State Reimbursementa

 

Sponsor Funds 57 (6.2) 

Parent Organization/Affiliation Funds 16 (5.1) 

Federal Funds 28 (6.6) 

State Funds 29 (6.2) 

Local Government Funds 19 (5.0) 

Donations/Volunteersb 4 (2.5) 

Other Sourcesc 15 (5.0) 

Sample Size 84 —

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. 

a

Because of missing data, sample sizes for specific responses range from 79 to 83. 

b

Category constructed from answers about “any other sources” that would help cover the 

difference between actual operating and administrative costs and the state’s reimbursement. 

c

Category combines two categories from the survey: (1) “other nonfederal funds,” and (2) “any 

other sources,” excluding donations and volunteers. 
71

sponsors’ costs claimed and reimbursed in 1996 and 1997 (just before and after the 1997 cut in 

reimbursement rates). The study found that 67 percent of sponsors remaining in the program 

from 1996 through 1998 reported costs exceeding maximum reimbursements in 1996, and that 

73 percent of those remaining in the program reported costs exceeding maximum 

reimbursements in 1997 (U.S. General Accounting Office 1998). 

Some sponsors, particularly in nonpilot states, reported that they expected to be reimbursed 

for less than half their SFSP operating or administrative costs. Twenty-six percent of nonpilot 

state sponsors reported this reimbursement shortfall for administrative costs; another 13 percent 

reported that they expected to be reimbursed for 51 to 75 percent of their costs. The expected 

low reimbursement rates may have been a function of unusually high costs relative to other 

sponsors’ costs or the result of sponsors’ inaccurate attendance or expense estimates in their 

SFSP applications. It is also possible that sponsors may not have recalled their costs accurately, 

or that they misunderstood what their reimbursements would likely be. 

About 60 percent of pilot-state sponsors believed they would increase the number of 

sponsored sites and/or children served in 2001 or in the future in response to the change in the 

reimbursement process. 

Most sponsors (57 percent) reporting that they would be reimbursed for less than 

100 percent of their administrative and operating costs used some of their own funds to 

supplement SFSP funds. About one-quarter reported that they planned to rely on federal sources 

other than the SFSP; a similar proportion reported that they would use funds from state sources. 

School sponsors expected to recover more of their costs than did nonschool sponsors; fully 

42 percent of school sponsors (versus 14 percent of nonschool sponsors) expected to have all 

their costs covered (Table G.1 in Appendix G). A possible explanation for this difference is that 

school sponsors have more experience managing food service programs, as they run programs all 

year. However, SFSP experience does not seem to be what matters—the cost recovery 

expectations reported by more-experienced SFSP sponsors (those participating in the SFSP for 

6 years or longer) and by less-experienced ones did not differ significantly (Table G.2). 

c. Sponsors’ Strategies to Control Costs 

To obtain additional data on sponsors’ responses to financial pressures, sponsors who 

reported that they had operated in previous years were asked whether they had used any of a 

number of strategies to control costs during the past few years (Table III.7). About 

three-quarters reported using at least one strategy.10 The most commonly reported strategies 

included (1) using fewer staff—most often by combining job functions (42 percent), hiring fewer 

 10Sponsors who reported having inadequate staff for at least one activity were more likely 

than other sponsors to report having used strategies to reduce costs (98 percent, versus 66 percent 

for other sponsors; n = 116). 
72 

TABLE III.7 

EXPERIENCED SPONSORS’ COST-CONTROL STRATEGIES 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Any Strategy 74 (5.5) 

Staffing 

Combined job functions 42 (5.2) 

Hired fewer people 32 (4.7) 

Had staff work fewer hours 28 (4.6) 

Had volunteers handle work usually done by paid staff 22 (5.0) 

Let staff go 10 (2.4) 

Reduced hourly pay 4 (1.9) 

Meal Preparation 

Found less expensive vendors or suppliers of food or 

meal components 31 (4.8) 

Switched from mostly hot meals to mostly cold meals 10 (2.8) 

Switched from vended sites to on-site cooking 7 (2.7) 

Switched from on-site cooking to vended sites 3 (1.4) 

Reduced food costs (found less expensive food, served fewer 

extra meals, changed meal plans)a

 2 (1.0) 

Program Administration 

Secured additional funds 15 (4.3) 

Reduced site monitoring 4 (2.1) 

Reduced site training 3 (1.5) 

Participation and Outreach 

Decreased number of sites 11 (2.8) 

Reduced publicity and promotion efforts 6 (1.5) 

Limited number of participants 4 (1.8) 

Other Strategya

 6 (2.6) 

Sample Size 123 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: The sample is restricted to experienced sponsors, defined as sponsors reporting that they were 

not in their first year of SFSP participation. Sponsors were asked explicitly whether they 

used particular strategies to control costs, except where noted. Because of missing data, 

sample sizes for specific responses range from 117 to 122. Tabulations are weighted to be 

representative of sponsors nationally. 

a

Categories constructed from responses to an open-ended question about any other steps sponsors took 

during the past few years to control the costs of the SFSP. 
73

staff (32 percent), reducing staff hours (28 percent), and relying on volunteers for work 

previously performed by paid staff (22 percent); and (2) attempting to reduce meal preparation 

costs—most often by finding less-expensive vendors or suppliers of food or meal components 

(31 percent). Some sponsors relied on administrative strategies, such as securing additional 

funds (15 percent), or limited program participation, such as by decreasing the number of sites 

(11 percent). 

School and nonschool sponsors reported different strategies for containing costs. School 

sponsors were significantly more likely to have reduced costs by cutting back on staff 

(combining job functions, hiring fewer people, or having staff work fewer hours). Nonschool 

sponsors were significantly more likely to have found less-expensive vendors, obtained 

additional funding, or limited their enrollment (Table G.3). There were no significant 

differences in cost control strategies by length of participation in the SFSP (Table G.4). 

3. State Payments to Sponsors 

The nature of the SFSP and its program rules imposes several constraints on how sponsors 

incur expenses and receive reimbursement. Because the program operates intensively during the 

summer, sponsors may incur large cash outflows over a short period. Many sponsors also incur 

expenses prior to starting meal delivery, because program planning and the purchase of 

equipment or supplies must be completed in advance. Thus, receiving reimbursements only after 

costs have been incurred might cause considerable cash flow problems for some sponsors. 

For many years, in an attempt to mitigate the problems associated with the timing of costs 

and reimbursements, FNS has allowed states to provide some funds to sponsors up front. The 

14-state pilot project discussed in the previous section is another policy that FNS has instituted. 

This section discusses state agency administrators’ views on these policies. 

a. Advance and Start-Up Funding 

Federal regulations allow state agencies to provide funding before sponsors have incurred 

expenses in the form of (1) advance funds, and (2) start-up payments. Advance funds are 

financial assistance provided by prespecified dates to a sponsor for a portion of its operating 

and/or administrative costs (7 CFR 225.2).11 Subject to some limitations, a state agency may 

provide an advance payment for operating costs up to the larger of (1) the total operating costs 

paid to the sponsor for the same calendar month of the preceding year; or (2) 50 percent of the 

amount determined by the state to be required that month for meals if the sponsor uses a vendor, 

 11Generally, advance payments for operating costs are to be made by June 1, July 15, and 

August 15. Advance payments for administrative costs are to be made by the first two of the 

three dates. An exception to this schedule is permitted for sponsors that operate under a 

continuous school calendar. Their advance payments are to be made at the beginning of the 

month in which costs are incurred. See 7 CFR 225.9(c)(1) and (2). 
74

and 65 percent if the sponsor does not. Advance payments for administrative costs generally 

may be between one-third and two-thirds of the costs that the state agency determines the 

sponsor will need to administer the program, depending on when the program operates. 

Start-up payments are financial assistance to sponsors for up to 20 percent of the 

administrative budget and are intended to help sponsors more effectively plan SFSP activities 

(7 CFR 225.2). State agencies may provide start-up payments as early as 2 months before the 

start of a sponsor’s food service operations. 

Both types of payments are deducted from subsequent reimbursements for program 

administration and operations. However, from 1994 to 1996, state agencies were allowed to 

provide start-up payments in the form of grants, which were not deducted from subsequent 

payments (see Chapter I).

Most state agencies (87 percent) offered advance funding to sponsors in 2001 (Table III.8). 

State administrators reported that the process occasionally created problems. According to about 

half the administrators, recovering funds from sponsors that had overestimated their allowable 

expenses sometimes was difficult. The timing of the process (application deadlines or 

disbursement schedules) also created problems for sponsors in some states, making this funding 

option potentially more difficult for states to administer and, possibly, less useful for sponsors. 

Although state administrators were not asked specifically how often problems occurred, several 

commented that they had these problems with only a few sponsors each year. 

About two-thirds of the state administrators would like to have additional start-up funds 

available for sponsors. Although the SFSP currently allows for deductible start-up payments 

only, most of the state administrators interpreted the survey question on the topic to mean startup payments in the form of grants that were not deductible from future payments.12 For 

example, several respondents stated, “I would be interested if it was a grant program.” Most of 

the interested state administrators (54 percent) reported that they would want sponsors to use 

some of the money for outreach or advertising. Some would use the funds to help sponsors 

cover the costs of equipment, transportation, training, technical assistance, and/or staffing. 

b. State Administrators’ Views on the Pilot Program 

State administrators in both pilot states and nonpilot states were asked for their views on the 

Congressionally mandated pilot. About 75 percent believed that the pilot program’s policy (to 

reimburse sponsors the maximum rate for their combined administrative and operating costs) 

would help expand the SFSP (Table III.9). About two-thirds thought it would attract new 

sponsors and/or retain current ones. About 40 percent thought that current sponsors would add 

sites. 

 12The study did not ask how many state agencies currently were providing start-up payments 

that are deducted from subsequent reimbursements. 
75 

TABLE III.8 

STATE AGENCIES’ VIEWS ON THE USE OF ADVANCE AND START-UP FUNDS 

 Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

State Provided Advance Funds to Sponsors in 2001 

Yes 47 87.0 

No 7 13.0 

 

Problems with Providing Advance Funds, State 

Perspectivea

 

Recovering funds from sponsors that overestimated 25 46.3 

Application deadlines hard for sponsors to meet 6 11.1 

Advance funding paid too late for sponsors 3 5.6 

Difficult to determine appropriate amount 3 5.6 

Recovering funds from sponsors that did not open or 

did not comply with rules 2 3.7 

Threshold for funds too high 2 3.2 

Other 2 3.7 

Noneb

 15 27.8 

Never used advance funding 4 7.4 

 

Interested in Obtaining Additional Start-Up Funds 

for Sponsors 

 

Yes 37 68.5 

No 17 31.5 

 

If Yes, Sponsors’ Permitted Use of Funds (n = 37)a 

Outreach/advertising 20 54.0 

Equipment or transportation 9 24.3 

Training and/or technical assistance 7 18.9 

Increase staff 5 13.5 

Start-up funds for new sponsors 4 10.8 

Increase number of sites 4 10.8 

Start-up funds for experienced sponsors 3 8.1 

Security 1 2.7 

Incentives for children to attend meals 1 2.7 

Otherc

 4 10.8 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

Open-ended questions; multiple responses were allowed. 

b

Two responses of “have had problems in the past, but none currently” were collapsed into this 

category. 

c

These state administrators seemed to misunderstand the question and responded that they would 

use the money for state-level needs. 
76

TABLE III.9 

STATE ADMINISTRATORS’ VIEWS ON THE PILOT PROJECT 

 All States Pilot States Nonpilot States 

 Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage 

Pilot Would/Will Help Expand 

the SFSP in State 

 

Yes 41 75.9 8 57.1 33 82.5 

No 9 16.7 6 42.9 3 7.5 

Don’t know 4 7.4 0 0.0 4 10.0 

Pilot Would Lead State Agency 

to:a

 

Bring in New Sponsors 

 

Yes 33 61.1 8 57.1 25 62.5 

No 20 37.0 6 42.9 14 35.0 

Don’t know 1 1.8 0 0.0 1 2.5 

Retain More Current Sponsors 

 

Yes 36 66.7 7 50.0 29 72.5 

No 16 29.6 7 50.0 9 22.5 

Don’t know 2 3.7 0 0.0 2 5.0 

Add More Sites from Current 

Sponsors 

 

Yes 22 40.7 4 28.6 18 45.0 

No 25 46.3 8 57.1 17 42.5 

Don’t know 6 11.1 1 7.1 5 12.5 

Missing 1 1.8 1 7.1 0 0.0 

Total 54 — 14 — 40 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

NOTE: The pilot project allows sponsors (other than nonprofit organizations) in 14 states to combine 

administrative and operating costs, and to receive the maximum reimbursement rate for meals served. 

The pilot was targeted to states with low SFSP participation rates. 

a

State administrators who did not think that the pilot will/would increase participation (or who did not know) were 

not asked this set of detailed questions and have been included in the “No” category for them. 
77

Interestingly, administrators in pilot states were less likely than those in nonpilot states to 

believe the pilot program would increase participation.13 Those in nonpilot states were 

speculating about the pilot’s effects. In contrast, administrators in pilot states were drawing 

conclusions from actual experience, although the pilot program was only in its first year. The 

program’s short-run effects may have been disappointing relative to expectations: it might take 

longer than 1 year for most potential sponsors to become aware of the new policy and to 

establish a program, or the program’s effect may have been smaller than expected. 

Administrators in nonpilot states did not have to make similar adjustments to their expectations. 

Alternatively, because participation rates during the period before the pilot was instituted were 

lower in the pilot states than in the nonpilot states, the perceptions or experiences of the two 

groups of state administrators about efforts to expand participation in their own states may have 

differed systematically in ways unrelated to experience with the pilot. For example, relative to 

nonpilot states, pilot states may face more barriers that limit the SFSP’s ability to expand in 

response to the pilot. 

B. SPONSOR APPLICATIONS 

Many sponsors and state agency staff believed that preparing the SFSP sponsor application 

was demanding. Applications by new sponsors (and sponsors that have had significant 

operational problems during the prior year) must include the following five components (7 CFR 

225.6[c]): 

1. Evidence that the sponsor meets program eligibility criteria 

2. A complete administrative and operating budget for review and approval, including 

all requests for advance and start-up payments 

3. Information on how meals will be obtained, including information on the vendor 

bidding process, if conducted 

4. Documentation of adherence to the program’s free meals and nondiscrimination 

statements 

5. Additional documentation specific to the type of sponsor, such as camps 

 13Sixty percent of sponsors in pilot states reported that the change in the reimbursement 

process might lead them to increase the number of sites sponsored and/or children served 

(Table III.6). Sponsors were therefore somewhat more optimistic about the pilot program than 

were the state administrators. Although these impressions are interesting, more experience and a 

more systematic evaluation of the program are necessary to determine whether the pilot program 

will have the desired effects. 
78

The application also must describe in detail each of the proposed sites, including documentation 

of the site’s eligibility, based on the regulations for that type of site.14

In January 2000, federal application requirements were changed to allow experienced 

sponsors to provide less-comprehensive documentation for some parts of the application, but 

only if information had not changed since the previous year (7 CFR 225.6[c]).15 The goal of this 

change was to reduce paperwork and the time required for sponsors to complete and states to 

review the applications. Experienced sponsors now may submit documentation on the eligibility 

of open and restricted open sites less frequently than in the past.16 Their descriptions of each of 

their sites may be less comprehensive.17 However, many parts of the application, such as the 

number of meals to be served at each site and the budget, must be submitted every year. 

State agencies approve nearly all applications, but often only after providing extensive 

technical assistance. Almost all state administrators reported that 90 percent or more of the 

applications their agencies received were approved; only one state agency accepted fewer than 

 14These site information sheets must describe (1) an organized and supervised system for 

serving meals; (2) estimates of the number and types of meals to be served; (3) arrangements for 

delivering and storing meals until they are served, and for storing and refrigerating leftover 

meals until the next day; (4) arrangements for food service during bad weather; (5) a means of 

adjusting the number of meals delivered; (6) whether the site is rural; and (7) whether the site’s 

food service will be self-prepared or vended. 

15Sponsors must provide detailed information on any new sites but can provide lesscomprehensive information on older ones. A state agency can require an experienced sponsor to 

provide more information on any site, if this step seems warranted. 

16School data used to determine a site’s eligibility now must be submitted every 3 years, 

rather than every 2 years. When census data are used, documentation of eligibility must be 

submitted when new census data are available. A state agency may require documentation of 

eligibility more frequently if it believes that an area’s socioeconomic status has changed 

significantly. 

17The information sheets for experienced sites do not need to describe (1) an organized and 

supervised system for serving meals; (2) arrangements for delivering and storing meals until they 

are served, and for storing and refrigerating leftover meals until the next day; (3) arrangements 

for food service during bad weather; (4) a means of adjusting the number of meals delivered; or 

(5) whether the site is rural. 
79

80 percent of those submitted (Table III.10).18,19 Because about 90 percent of sponsors in 2001 

were experienced, it is not too surprising that more than 90 percent of applications were 

approved, on average. Furthermore, as discussed in Section C, some sponsors received 

substantial technical assistance after submitting their applications to ensure that the applications 

met all the requirements. Nearly two out of five state administrators reported having inadequate 

staff to handle the application process (refer to Table III.2). 

Most state administrators did not believe that the reduced application requirements for 

experienced sponsors had any effect; however, about 30 percent thought that the effects were 

positive. It is not clear why most state administrators did not see any effects. It is possible that 

the state agencies did not implement the changes. Alternatively, the changes may have seemed 

minor relative to the remaining requirements. The budget component of the application, which is 

often perceived as the most complicated piece, did not change. 

Most state agencies set the deadline for submission of applications in April or May. Twelve 

state administrators reported that the deadlines varied, depending on whether the sponsor was 

new or experienced, the program’s start date, whether the sponsor requested advance funds or 

commodities, and/or the sponsor’s size.20,21 Many accepted applications through June 15. 

In response to an open-ended question, three-quarters of the sponsors had no comments on 

or suggestions for improving the application process (Table III.11). The most common 

suggestion, given by 49 percent of sponsors who commented, was to reduce the detail and 

quantity of paperwork required. Some sponsors (24 percent of those with comments) suggested 

modifying the application schedule; one wanted an earlier deadline, to provide more staff 

training time, whereas others wanted a later deadline. Other suggestions included correcting 

problems in the electronic forms, allowing forms to be updated, changing SFSP rules for schools 

 18Initial submissions often are not considered complete. State agencies provide substantial 

technical assistance to sponsors in completing the application process. Sponsors that do not meet 

requirements may withdraw or fail to complete the application process. Thus, state agency staff 

may consider only eligible sponsors and sponsors without problems as having completed the 

process. 

19The sole state agency that accepted fewer than 80 percent of its applications turned down 

relatively few applicants. However, it had few applications relative to the number submitted to 

many other state agencies. 

20Although federal regulations require the state agency to have an application deadline no 

later than June 15, states may choose to set earlier deadlines (7 CFR 225.6[b][1]). 

21States also must conduct visits to some sponsors or sites prior to approving the application 

to assess whether the sponsors are able to participate in the program successfully. These 

preapproval visits must be conducted for new sponsors (unless the sponsor is an SFA and 

successfully participated in the NSLP in the previous year) and for sponsors that had significant 

operational problems in the previous year (7 CFR 225.7[d][1]). 
80 

TABLE III.10 

PROCESSING OF SPONSOR APPLICATIONS 

 Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of Applications Approved 

 

<80 1 1.8 

80 to 85 1 1.8 

86 to 90 3 5.6 

91 to 95 13 24.1 

96 to 99 21 38.9 

100 15 27.8 

Mean 96.1 — 

 

State Administrators’ Views on Effects of Reduced 

Application Requirements for Experienced 

Sponsors 

 

Positive 16 29.6 

Negative 0 0.0 

No effect 35 64.8 

Did not change requirements 1 1.8 

Don’t know 2 3.7 

 

Month of Application Deadline for Sponsorsa 

March 1 1.8 

April 16 29.7 

May 16 29.7 

June 9 16.7 

Varies for new/experienced sponsors 1 1.8 

Varies by sponsors’ start dates 4 7.4 

Varies for sponsors requesting advance funds 

and/or commodities 3 5.6 

Varies by number of sites 2 3.7 

Varies by sponsors’ experience and request for 

advance funds/commodities 2 3.7 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

The federal deadline for sponsors’ applications is June 15, but state agencies may set earlier 

deadlines. 
81 

TABLE III.11 

SPONSORS’ COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION PROCESS 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Sponsors 

Had no comments 75 (4.9) 

Had a comment 25 (4.9) 

Sample Sizea 

124 — 

Suggestions on Improving Application Processb 

Reduce detail or quantity of paperwork (in general) 49 (10.0) 

Modify timing of process; provide faster turnaround 24 (10.0) 

Fix problems with electronic forms 13 (6.9) 

Allow forms to be updated (electronically or 

other way) 9 (5.2) 

Make SFSP seamless with NSLP; simplify 

for schools 8 (4.1) 

Make site eligibility documentation easier 5 (3.9) 

Simplify or eliminate process of specifying serving 

times and operation dates 4 (3.0) 

Use one reimbursement rate; simplify 

reimbursement process 4 (2.9) 

Provide more-clearly written materials 3 (2.7) 

Simplify budgeting/estimating costs 3 (2.5) 

Schedule training earlier; enhance or 

increase training 3 (2.1) 

Pilot program helps 1 (1.2) 

Other 5 (3.5) 

Sample Size 40 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. 

a

One sponsor did not answer this question. Another sponsor gave an invalid answer. These sponsors 

were omitted. 

b

Multiple responses allowed. 

NSLP = National School Lunch Program. 
82

so that they would more closely resemble NSLP rules, and simplifying specific parts of the 

application (such as the eligibility documentation or budget estimation). 

C. TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

State agencies provided training and technical assistance to sponsors to share information 

about program rules and regulations; strategies to provide nutritious, appetizing meals; and ways 

to encourage participation. Sponsors provided training and technical assistance to sites for 

similar purposes. 

• States reported providing extensive training and technical assistance to sponsors, and 

most sponsors felt they received the help they needed. However, about 40 percent of 

sponsors would have liked more technical assistance in at least one area, such as 

administrative or fiscal management. 

• Almost all sponsors conducted relatively brief training sessions for their sites, which 

covered such topics as meal count records, health regulations, and site violations. 

The few sponsors that did not train their site staff were single-site sponsors with only 

a few program staff; their staff attended the state-run training sessions. 

1. State Training of Sponsors 

Federal regulations require that state agencies provide training to sponsors, vendors, and 

other relevant personnel (such as health inspectors) in all areas of program administration. These 

sessions often were held before sponsors prepared their applications. This schedule enabled 

applicants to learn about program administration and monitoring, claims and reimbursement 

procedures, meal service, working with vendors, and outreach before beginning the application 

process. The sessions also gave potential sponsors information they needed to decide whether to 

submit an application. 

In general, states expected sponsors to attend one training session, but some offered the 

training several times and/or in several locations to accommodate sponsors’ schedules, and to 

minimize the need to travel to a training session. According to the state administrators, state 

agencies conducted an average of seven training sessions (Table III.12). The sessions lasted 

about three-quarters of a day, on average, although some took less than one-half day, and some 

more than a full day. About two-thirds of the state agencies conducted additional or longer 

training sessions for new sponsors so as to cover the material in more detail than was probably 

necessary for experienced sponsors. 

Sponsors sent an average of two staff to the state-run training sessions (Table III.13). 

One-third sent only one person; about 12 percent did not send any staff. All the sponsors in the 

latter group were experienced.22

 22In 1986, some sponsors from about one-quarter of the surveyed states did not attend staterun training sessions (Ohls et al. 1988). 
83 

TABLE III.12 

STATE TRAINING OF SPONSORS 

Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Number of Training Sessions Held for 

2001 SFSP 

 

1 to 4 23 42.6 

5 to 8 15 27.8 

9 to 12 7 13.0 

≥13 9 16.7 

Mean 6.9 — 

Average Length of Training (Hours) 

 

2 to 4 18 33.3 

5 to 7 25 46.3 

8 to 10 7 13.0 

≥11 4 7.4 

Mean 6 — 

Additional Training for New Sponsorsa

 

Yes 37 68.5 

No 17 31.5 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

Excludes on-site assistance provided at the start of operations. 
84

TABLE III.13 

NUMBER OF SPONSORS’ STAFF ATTENDING STATE TRAINING 

Number Attending 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

0 12 (3.8) 

1 33 (5.5) 

2 32 (5.2) 

3 13 (3.8) 

4 to 6 6 (2.1) 

p7 5 (1.7) 

Meana

 2 (0.2) 

Sample Size 125 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: One sponsor did not answer this question. Tabulations are weighted to be 

representative of sponsors nationally. 

a

Estimate of the mean includes sponsors that did not send any staff to a training session. 
85

The sponsors reported that the training helped them to understand a wide range of topics 

(Table III.14). Nearly all sponsors (85 to 95 percent, depending on the specific topic) judged 

training on monitoring and review issues, such as sponsors’ monitoring of site staff and state and 

USDA monitoring of sites, to be helpful. Coverage of administrative and accounting rules for 

the food service (such as meal count and food expenditure records) and of reimbursements was 

also almost always viewed as helpful, as were discussions of health regulations. Although 

covered less frequently, training on how to assess food quality, purchase food, and work with 

vendors generally also was viewed positively. One-fifth or more of sponsors also reported that 

training did not cover advance and final payments or the pilot program. (These topics may not in 

fact have been covered, but it is also possible that sponsors did not remember receiving training 

on topics they did not consider relevant, or that the questionnaire and the training session used 

different terms to refer to a topic.)

State administrators were asked which topics gave sponsors the most difficulty both during 

training and after training (Table III.15). State administrators most frequently mentioned that 

both new and experienced sponsors had difficulty understanding how to budget for the SFSP 

(including how the program is reimbursed) and how to prepare claims for reimbursements and 

maintain the necessary accounting records; these issues were mentioned by at least 30 percent of 

state administrators. In addition, one-quarter to one-third of the state administrators reported that 

new sponsors tended to have difficulty understanding the application process, completing 

required paperwork, and implementing the meal pattern/menu planning requirements, but fewer 

state administrators believed that these topics caused problems for experienced sponsors. About 

one-fifth of the administrators mentioned production records (records that document the number 

of meals prepared or delivered to a site) as a topic giving both new and experienced sponsors 

difficulty. Smaller numbers mentioned staffing, staff training, and site monitoring and 

management. 

2. State Technical Assistance to Sponsors 

The state agencies provided technical assistance to sponsors in many areas (Table III.16). 

Most likely, both sponsors’ requests for assistance with particular topics and states agencies’

perceptions about areas most in need of improvement determined which topics were frequently 

covered. More than 80 percent of the state agencies reported that they often provided technical 

assistance with the application process, and about 60 percent reported that they often provided 

assistance with reimbursement forms, site management practices, and steps to correct violations. 

Most state agencies (52 percent) reported that they assisted with community outreach only 

sometimes. Because most sponsors did not use vendors, the agencies provided guidance on 

selecting vendors less often than they did on other topics. 

Fifty-eight percent of sponsors reported receiving technical assistance from the state 

(Table III.17). Almost all these sponsors thought that the assistance provided was sufficient. 

However, 39 percent of sponsors, including those who did not receive any assistance, reported 
TABLE III.14 

TOPICS COVERED IN STATE TRAINING OF SPONSORS 

Percentage of Sponsors Reporting Training on Topic Was: 

State Training Topic Helpful Standard Error Not Helpful Standard Error Not Covered Standard Error Monitoring and Reviews 

Sponsor monitoring of sites 95 (2.6) 5 (2.6) 0 (0.0) Administrative reviews 90 (3.3) 5 (2.5) 5 (2.3) State and USDA monitoring of sites 89 (4.2) 6 (2.5) 6 (3.5) Site violations and deficiencies 86 (4.9) 7 (3.4) 8 (3.7) 

Food Service/Management 

Meal count records 94 (2.7) 5 (2.5) 1 (1.1) Sponsor training of site staff 90 (4.3) 9 (4.2) 1 (1.1) Food expenditure records 88 (3.5) 8 (3.2) 4 (1.9) Health regulations and health inspections 85 (4.6) 4 (2.4) 11 (4.1) Assessment of food quality 69 (6.0) 12 (4.2) 19 (5.0) Purchasing of food 66 (6.0) 12 (3.8) 22 (5.1) Vendors and vendor contracts 53 (6.3) 20 (4.5) 27 (5.5) 

Fiscal Management 

Reimbursements 86 (4.6) 9 (4.2) 5 (2.2) Sponsor monitoring of operational budgets 77 (5.7) 14 (4.7) 9 (4.1) Sponsor monitoring of administrative budgets 76 (5.9) 16 (4.9) 8 (4.0) Final payments 74 (5.8) 7 (2.7) 19 (5.5) Advance payments 65 (6.2) 15 (4.7) 20 (5.1) New pilot program for changes in reimbursements 55 (6.1) 8 (3.7) 38 (5.6) 

Eligibility Issues 

Eligibility documentation 78 (5.5) 17 (5.1) 5 (2.2) Use of computer mapping 27 (5.6) 15 (4.6) 59 (6.6) 

86 
TABLE III.14 (continued) 

87 

Percentage of Sponsors Reporting Training on Topic Was: 

State Training Topic Helpful Standard Error Not Helpful Standard Error Not Covered Standard Error Outreach, Promotion, and Publicity 77 (5.5) 14 (4.5) 9 (3.7) Other Topics 

Use of the computer systema 3 (2.4) 0 (0.0) 97 (2.4) 

Other 4 (2.0) 0 (0.2) 96 (2.0) 

Sample Size 113 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: The table is restricted to sponsors who reported having at least one staff member who attended a state-run training session for the 2001 

SFSP. Because of missing data, samples sizes for specific items range from 105 to 111. Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. 

aCode constructed from verbatim responses to the question on “any other topics” that were helpful to staff during the state-run training. 

USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
88 

TABLE III.15 

STATE ADMINISTRATORS’ PERSPECTIVE ON TOPICS GIVING SPONSORS 

DIFFICULTY DURING OR AFTER STATE TRAINING, 

BY SPONSORS’ EXPERIENCE 

Topics Typically Giving 

Greatest Difficultya

Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

New Sponsors

 

Budgeting for program/understanding program reimbursement 25 46.3 

Paperwork (overall, for field trips, for civil rights) 18 33.3 

Claims process/accounting/bookkeeping 16 29.6 

Meal pattern requirements, menus, menu planning and records 16 29.6 

Application process, including documenting sites’ eligibility 15 27.8 

Production records 11 20.4 

Meal counts 7 13.0 

Site monitoring or site management 6 11.1 

Staffing, staff training 4 7.4 

Otherb 8 14.8 

Experienced Sponsors

 

Claims process/accounting/bookkeeping 16 29.6 

Budgeting for program/understanding program reimbursement 15 27.8 

Production records 9 16.7 

Meal counts 7 13.0 

Paperwork (overall, for field trips, for civil rights) 7 13.0 

Application process, including documenting sites’ eligibility 6 11.1 

Site monitoring or site management 6 11.1 

Meal pattern requirements, menus, menu planning and records 5 9.3 

Staffing, staff training 5 9.3 

Time sheets 1 1.8 

Otherb 8 14.8 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

Open-ended questions. Multiple responses allowed. 

b

Other topics mentioned include rules concerning vendors and the procurement process, sanitation, 

computerized forms, understanding the differences between rules for the SFSP and rules for the school 

meal programs (for school sponsors), the need to have fixed meal times, the rules for the pilot project, 

and approaches to maintaining or increasing participation. 
89 

TABLE III.16 

AREAS OF STATE AGENCIES’ TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

(Row Percentages) 

Percentage of State Agencies 

Providing Assistance 

Topic Often Sometimes Rarely 

Application Process 81.5 14.8 3.7 

Completing Reimbursement Forms 63.0 29.6 7.4 

Site Management Practices, Including Menu 

Planning and Meal Counts 59.3 35.2 5.6 

Correcting Violations or Improper Practices 57.4 35.2 7.4 

Financial Management 46.3 42.6 11.1 

Community Outreach and Providing Outreach 

Materials 24.1 51.8 24.1 

Selecting a Vendor 24.1 22.2 53.7a 

Total 54 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

Ten state administrators (18.5 percent) reported that they did not provide any assistance in 

selecting a vendor. Their responses were included in the “Rarely” category. 
90 

TABLE III.17 

SPONSORS’ VIEWS ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM STATE AGENCIES 

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Received Technical Assistancea 58 (5.0) 

Sponsors Receiving Assistance Believed Amount Was: (n = 77) 

About right 98 (1.3) 

Too little 2 (1.3) 

Would Have Liked More Technical Assistance on:a 

Overall administrative management 29 (5.4) 

Fiscal management 21 (4.6) 

Site management 15 (4.1) 

Job training 14 (4.0) 

Finding a vendor 5 (1.8) 

Vendor relations 4 (1.7) 

Other 2 (1.1) 

Would Have Liked More Assistance in at Least 

One of These Areasa 39 (5.6) 

Used Manualb,c

Sponsor’s Handbook 95 (2.4) 

Monitor’s Handbook 91 (3.3) 

Sponsor’s Meal Preparation Handbook 73 (5.3) 

Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition Programs 65 (5.5) 

Site Supervisor’s Guide 4 (1.7) 

Other manual 3 (2.2) 

Sample Size 126 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. 

a

Because of missing data, sample sizes range from 123 to 125. 

b

Because of missing data, sample sizes range from 112 to 125. 

c

Multiple responses allowed. The Sponsor’s Handbook is formally titled, Administrative 

Guidance for Sponsors. The Monitor’s Handbook is also known as the Monitor’s Guide. The 

Sponsor’s Meal Preparation Handbook is also known as Nutrition Guidance for Sponsors. All 

these titles were mentioned in the survey. Sponsors who reported using the Site Supervisor’s 

Guide did so in response to a question about whether any other manuals were used in 

sponsoring the SFSP. The data here assume that sponsors who did not know whether they used 

any other handbook or who said they did not have any other handbooks did not, in fact, use any 

other handbook. However, those who left the question blank are omitted from the tabulations. 
91

wanting more assistance in at least one area.23 About one-quarter of all sponsors wanted more 

assistance with administrative and fiscal program management. Some also thought that 

additional technical assistance with site management and job training would be helpful. 

To help sponsors with their day-to-day operations, the state agencies gave them manuals that 

FNS had prepared. Almost all the sponsors reported using the Sponsor’s Handbook and the 

Monitor’s Handbook. Between two-thirds and three-fourths used other manuals provided by the 

state agencies or by FNS for their program operations. 

3. Sponsor Training and Technical Assistance to Sites 

Sponsors provide training and technical assistance to sites to ensure that the sites implement 

program policies and procedures correctly and efficiently. Training of site staff must cover the 

purpose of the SFSP, site eligibility, record keeping, site operations, meal pattern requirements, 

and the duties of a monitor (7 CFR 225.15[d][1]). Sponsors are prohibited from allowing a site 

to operate until its staff have attended a training session. 

Almost all the sponsors reported conducting training sessions for on-site staff, typically, one 

or two sessions (Table III.18).24 The sessions generally were much shorter than the state 

agencies’ training sessions for sponsors. Almost two-thirds of sponsors that conducted training 

did so in sessions lasting 2 hours or less; according to the sponsors’ reports, however, some 

training sessions lasted longer than 4 hours. Site training almost always covered meal count 

records; health regulations, food safety, or sanitation; site violations and deficiencies; and 

monitoring of sites. When asked to cite other topics, a few sponsors mentioned safety, 

supervision, and discipline; civil rights, discrimination, and sensitivity issues; the purpose of the 

SFSP; program rules and policies; menus, meal service, and meal deliveries; budgeting; sponsorsite communication procedures; and troubleshooting. (These topics are grouped in Table III.18 

as “Other.”) 

All the sponsors that reported no training of site staff operated only one site, and did so with 

only a few program staff. These sponsors sent staff to a state-run training session, which may 

have been sufficient. 

Most sponsors reported that, because no new employees started after the SFSP began, they 

did not have to conduct training other than the formal training provided at the beginning of the 

 23When questioned, about 36 percent of the sponsors who reported having received the right 

amount of technical assistance in the past also reported wanting more assistance in specific 

substantive areas, such as administrative or fiscal management. The seemingly contradictory 

responses suggest that, despite satisfaction with the state’s technical assistance, these sponsors 

might like additional state guidance, possibly in new areas. 

24Some state administrators reported that state agency staff attended or made presentations at 

these training sessions. However, such attendance was rare. 
92 

TABLE III.18 

SPONSOR-PROVIDED TRAINING FOR SITE STAFF 

(Percentages, Unless Otherwise Stated) 

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

All Sponsors 

 

Number of Training Sessions 

for On-Site Staffa 

 

0 7 (3.8) 

1 51 (5.5) 

2 26 (4.7) 

3 7 (2.2) 

4 to 6 8 (2.6) 

≥7 1 (0.6) 

Mean 1.8 (0.1) 

Sample Size 125 — 

Sponsors Providing Training 

Average Length of Training (Hours)b

 

1 26 (5.1) 

2 37 (5.9) 

3 or 4 26 (4.9) 

≥5 11 (3.6) 

Mean 2.9 (0.5) 

Median 2.0 — 

Percentage of Training Sessions on:c 

Meal count records 99 (0.7) 

Health regulations, food safety, or sanitationd 96 (2.2) 

Site violations and deficiencies 94 (2.5) 

State and USDA monitoring of sites 93 (2.7) 

Sponsor monitoring of sites 92 (3.5) 

Working with vendors 33 (5.3) 

Other 17 (3.5) 
TABLE III.18 (continued)

93 

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Training Method for New Site Staff Starting 

After Summer Beginsc,e 

No new employees start later in the summer 63 (4.9) 

On-the-job or on-site training 11 (3.4) 

Training by sponsor, one-on-one or as a group 10 (3.1) 

Regular orientation and/or formal training session 8 (2.6) 

New staff review training agenda and materials 8 (3.8) 

Other 8 (3.7) 

Sample Size 121 —

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. 

a

One sponsor did not answer this question. 

b

The average reported by each sponsor for all the training sessions the sponsor held. It does not 

take into account (weight) the number of training sessions that the sponsor held. 

c

Because of missing data, sample sizes for specific items range from 119 to 121. 

d

Includes sponsors reporting that “health regulations and food safety” were covered when asked 

directly about this issue and sponsors reporting that cleanliness, hygiene, or sanitation topics 

were covered when asked about “any other topics” covered in the 2001 training sessions. 

e

Categories coded from an open-ended question on how sponsors train new site staff who start 

during the course of the summer. Multiple responses allowed. 

USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
94

summer. Sponsors that took on staff later in the summer used a variety of training methods. 

Informal ones were the most frequently used and included on-the-job or on-site training, one-onone or group training by the sponsor, and review of the training agenda and material by the new 

staff. Some sponsors, disproportionately large ones, used a regular or formal training session. 

To learn about sponsor-site interactions from the site perspective, site supervisors at sites 

run by multisite sponsors were asked during the site visit about the training and technical 

assistance the sponsor provided (Table III.19). (Single-site sponsors were not asked these 

questions because sponsor and site staff generally were the same.) Most site supervisors 

reported receiving training from the sponsor; in most instances, the site supervisor or program 

director also helped conduct the training. About three out of every five site supervisors 

interviewed reported that site staff received technical assistance from the sponsor in 2001 on 

such topics as record keeping, meal quantity adjustments, and food safety procedures. Most site 

supervisors considered the sponsor’s help to be sufficient; however, a few would have liked the 

sponsor to improve the menu; provide additional training, communication, or technical 

assistance; or provide additional staff or resources. 

Supervisors of sites run by multisite sponsors reported that their sponsor had visited an 

average of five times; however, the number of visits reported varied greatly. Sponsor staff visit 

sites both for monitoring purposes and for technical assistance purposes; they also may visit as 

part of basic site operations (for example, to deliver meals). Supervisors of about 1 in 10 sites 

reported that the sponsor had not visited by the time of data collection. Sponsors are supposed to 

visit all their sites during the first week of operations, but this report suggests that some sponsors 

may have had difficulty providing the required levels of monitoring.25 More than half the sites 

(56 percent) reported three visits or fewer. In other sites, many sponsor visits were reported, up 

to a maximum of about three per day. 

Site staff at 41 percent of sites had not discussed meal choices with sponsors. However, 

26 percent of site staff often discussed this topic with sponsors, and 34 percent did so 

occasionally. 

D. PROGRAM MONITORING 

Monitoring serves to ensure that SFSP administration is consistent with program rules and 

regulations. It also facilitates corrective action when necessary. State agencies are required to 

 25The number of sponsor visits reported is as of the day that the interviewer visited the site. 

Data collection visits occurred at various points during program operations, so the data cannot be 

interpreted as the total number of sponsor visits conducted during the summer. However, when 

the sample is restricted to sites that had been open at least 1 week at the time of the interviewer’s 

visit, 10 percent of the site supervisors reported that the site had not yet received a sponsor visit 

(weighted tabulation; standard error = 3.8 percent; n = 105; not shown in table). 
95

TABLE III.19 

SITE SUPERVISORS’ VIEWS ON TRAINING AND 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM SPONSORS 

 Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

All Sites 

 

Site Staff Trained by:a 

 

Sponsor 91 (2.3) 

Site supervisor/program director 67 (4.6) 

Other site staff 36 (5.7) 

State agency 27 (4.3) 

Food or nutrition advocacy group 22 (3.5) 

Health department 1 (0.7) 

No one specified 1 (0.6) 

Sample Sizeb 162 — 

Sites of Multisite Sponsors 

 

Site Received Other Help or Technical Assistance 

from Sponsor in 2001 

 

Yes 60 (5.6) 

No 35 (5.4) 

Don’t know 5 (3.3) 

Technical Assistance Topics Covered, Among 

Those Receiving Technical Assistance (n = 73)a 

 

Record keeping 88 (4.7) 

Making meal quantity adjustments 73 (6.7) 

Food safety procedures 72 (7.1) 

Monitoring food quality 70 (7.5) 

Food purchasing 54 (7.2) 

Otherc

 14 (4.7) 

Ways Sponsor Could Be More Helpfula,d

 

Improve menu 9 (3.6) 

Provide more training, communication, 

technical assistance 5 (2.4) 

Provide more staff, resources 5 (2.0) 

Othere

 6 (2.6) 

Nothing 75 (4.7) 
TABLE III.19 (continued) 

96

 Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Number of Sponsor Visitsf 

 

0 11 (3.6) 

1 12 (3.5) 

2 to 3 33 (5.9) 

4 to 5 17 (4.3) 

6 to 10 11 (3.0) 

≥11 12 (4.3) 

Don’t know 4 (2.0) 

Mean 5.3 (0.8) 

Median 2.5 (0.4) 

Site Staff Discuss Meal Choices with Sponsor: 

 

Often 26 (4.9) 

Sometimes 34 (5.3) 

Never 41 (7.1) 

Sample Sizeg 119 —

Source: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sites nationally. 

a

Multiple responses allowed. 

b

Because of missing data, the number of valid responses to specific items varies from 136 to 152. 

c

Includes assistance with advertising, finances, sanitation, menu planning, playground safety, and 

computers. 

d

Open-ended question. 

e

Includes assistance with increasing participation, enlarging or modernizing the kitchen, increasing the 

cap on the number of children who can participate, providing menus, and providing food handlers. 

f

Refers to the number of sponsor visits as of the time of the site supervisor survey, which could have been 

at any time during the site’s operations. 

g

Because of missing data, the number of valid responses varies from 114 to 119, except where noted. 
97

conduct both administrative reviews of sponsors and visits to sites. Sponsors must monitor their 

sites throughout program operations to ensure compliance with program regulations. 

• Consistent with the federal regulations, state agencies concentrated their review 

efforts on new sponsors. On average, 94 percent of new sponsors and 58 percent of 

experienced sponsors were reviewed. 

• About 84 percent of sponsors reported conducting two or more reviews per site. 

Nearly three-quarters arrived unannounced, helping to ensure that monitoring 

observations reflected actual day-to-day program operations. 

1. State Monitoring of Sponsors and Sites 

State agencies ensure compliance with program rules and regulations through both 

administrative reviews of sponsors and site visits. Regulations dictate that the agencies review 

all new sponsors during the sponsors’ first summer of program operations, and that they conduct 

annual reviews of sponsors with very high levels of reimbursements and of sponsors that had 

operational difficulties during the previous year (7 CFR 225.7[d][2][ii]).26 In addition, every 

sponsor must be reviewed at least once every 3 years. The review must include visits to 

10 percent of a sponsor’s sites or to one site, whichever is larger. These requirements are fairly 

extensive for a program that almost always operates for 3 months or less. In comparison, state 

agencies must conduct administrative reviews of SFAs for the school meal programs (which 

operate for 9 months or more) about once every 5 years, although they are encouraged to review 

large SFAs more often, and they must conduct follow-up reviews if problems are detected 

(7CFR 210.18). Of course, many SFSP sponsors have less food service experience than do 

SFAs. 

Administrative reviews typically are conducted at the sponsor’s headquarters and are 

reviews of documents (such as meal count sheets from the sites, vendors’ invoices and delivery 

receipts, menus, production records, and staff timesheets) that the sponsor is required to keep to 

support its claims for reimbursement. About half the state agencies conducted all their 

administrative reviews during the summer (Table III.20). Most of the others began their reviews 

during the summer but completed them after program operations had ended. Two state agencies 

began reviews in the fall. 

During the interview, state administrators estimated the number of administrative reviews of 

new and experienced sponsors and the total number of new sponsors. In some cases, however, 

the administrators admitted that they did not have precise numbers at the time of their interview, 

so these estimates should be interpreted as an approximate indicator of how well states are 

complying with monitoring regulations. 

 26States are not required to review a school food authority (SFA) sponsor if that sponsor had 

been reviewed for the NSLP during the same year. 
98 

TABLE III.20 

STATE AGENCIES’ REVIEWS OF SPONSORS AND SITES 

 Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Period Covering Reviews of Sponsors 

 

Summer (May to August) 28 51.8 

Summer (May to August) to early fall 

(September to October) 20 37.0 

Summer (May to August) to late fall or winter 

(November to February) 4 7.4 

Fall or fall to winter (September or later) 2 3.7 

New Sponsor Reviews as Percentage of 

New Sponsors 

 

<60 3 5.6 

61 to 99 5 9.2 

100 41 75.9 

>100a 1 1.8 

Don’t know 1 1.8 

No new sponsors 3 5.6 

Mean 94 —

Median 100 —

Experienced Sponsor Reviews as Percentage of 

Experienced Sponsors 

 

<30 9 16.7 

31 to 60 27 50.0 

61 to 99 9 16.7 

100 5 9.3 

>100a 3 5.6 

Don’t know 1 1.8 

Mean 58 —

Median 50 —

New Monitoring Requirements Target Resources to 

Sponsors/Sites Most in Need of Additional Reviewb 

 

Yes 29 53.7 

No 19 35.2 

Don’t know 6 11.1 
TABLE III.20 (continued)

99 

 Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Approximate Number of Sites Visited (n = 53)c 

1 to 25 10 18.9 

26 to 50 11 20.7 

51 to 100 9 17.0 

101 to 200 12 22.6 

201 to 500 7 13.2 

>500 4 7.5 

Mean 168 —

Median 80 —

Percentage of Sites Visitedc 

<10 8 15.09 

10 to <20 12 22.64 

20 to <30 13 24.53 

30 to <50 12 22.64 

50 to <80 5 9.43 

≥80 3 5.66 

Mean 30 —

Median 24 —

Percentage of Unannounced Site Visits 

 

<25 20 37.0 

25 to 50 5 9.3 

51 to <75 1 1.8 

75 to <100 7 13.0 

100 21 38.9 

Mean 57 —

Median 84 —

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

The number of reviews was reported by the state administrators separately from the number of 

sponsors. The ratio sometimes exceeds 100 percent, perhaps because sponsors were reviewed 

more than once. 

b

The new monitoring requirements require annual reviews of new sponsors, large sponsors, and 

sponsors that had significant operational problems during the previous year (7 CFR 225.7 

[d][2][ii]), whereas other sponsors may be reviewed every 3 years. 

c

Refers to the number of sites state agency staff visited in summer 2001. 
100

Consistent with the federal regulations, administrative reviews focused on new sponsors; 

however, the state administrators reported that the state agencies reviewed 94 percent of new 

sponsors, on average, although they are required to review all of them.27 The eight state agencies 

reporting that they did not review all their new sponsors reviewed most of them.28 An average of 

58 percent of experienced sponsors were reviewed. State administrators in eight states reported 

that every experienced sponsor was reviewed. 

More than half the state administrators thought that the new monitoring requirements 

appropriately targeted visits to sponsors that most needed them. However, about one-third did 

not believe the new regulations were helpful. Some administrators volunteered various reasons 

for this belief (for example, the largest sponsors generally were not the ones with problems; state 

policy was to review all sponsors; and the state still was required to spend too much time 

monitoring sponsors, rather than helping them). 

State agency staff also visited sites during the summer as part of their monitoring efforts. 

These visits enabled the agencies to verify that food was served according to regulations, health 

and safety regulations were followed, and meal counts were recorded properly. In states with a 

large number of sites, state monitors conducted hundreds of visits. The state administrators 

reported that monitoring staff reviewed an average of 30 percent of their state’s sites. However, 

this measure varied widely; eight state agencies visited fewer than 10 percent of their sites, and 

eight visited at least 50 percent of their sites. 

About two-fifths of the state agencies did not announce any visits to the sponsor or site in 

advance; however, about an equal fraction gave advance notice for all or almost all visits. On 

average across states, 57 percent of site visits were unannounced. State monitoring staff 

generally considered unannounced visits the best way to observe a site’s day-to-day operations, 

because they increased the likelihood of detecting any infractions of rules or regulations. 

Nonetheless, logistical issues may have forced the state agencies to give advance notice of the 

visits (for example, to ensure that a remote site was open at the time of the planned visit). 

 27Ohls et al. (1988) found that states reported reviewing about 90 percent of sponsors (as a 

median). However, that rate and the current one cannot be compared directly because the 

regulations on state monitoring have changed. Pre-January 2000 regulations focused state 

agency review efforts on new nonprofit organizations operating within urban areas, new 

sponsors with 10 or more sites, and other sponsors that the state agency believed should be 

reviewed within the first 4 weeks of program operations. The review of other sponsors was 

based on the number of sites the sponsors administered (Federal Register [1999]). 

28No information is available to explain why some state agencies reported that they failed to 

review all their new sponsors. One state reported reviewing sites, but not sponsors. A new 

sponsor in another state had participated in the SFSP in the past and might have been the sole 

sponsor not reviewed by that state’s agency. In addition, when contacted in October 2001, some 

states provided preliminary numbers or estimates of the number of reviews and the number of 

new sponsors that may not match the final numbers. Some state administrators reported they had 

not completed reviews or paperwork at the time of the interview, and thus did not have final 

numbers available. 
101

2. Sponsors’ Monitoring of Sites 

Sponsors are required to visit each of their sites at least once during the first week of 

program operations, and to conduct a more comprehensive review at least once during the first 

4 weeks of operations (7 CFR 225.15[d]).29,30 In addition, throughout program operations, 

sponsors are required to maintain a reasonable level of monitoring. 

Almost half the sponsors (46 percent) that operated more than one site reported that they 

conducted two reviews per site, and 38 percent conducted more than two; however, 16 percent 

conducted only one review (Table III.21).31 Because the question asked specifically about site 

reviews, it seems likely sponsors would not count the first-week visits to sites in their 

responses.32 The average on-site review required 2.4 hours to complete. According to the 

sponsors, monitors spent an average of 61 percent of that time on site, 14 percent of the time 

traveling, and 25 percent on paperwork (data not shown). About one-third of the sponsors 

reported spending considerable time on paperwork (more than one-quarter of the visit’s time), 

whereas some reported spending no time on it. About three-quarters of the sponsors reported 

that all their on-site reviews were unannounced; as with state agency visits, unannounced visits 

may have helped to ensure that monitoring observations were based on routine, day-to-day 

program operations. 

About half (51 percent) of the sponsors that conducted more than one on-site review 

conducted the same number of reviews per site; another 10 percent conducted at least a 

prespecified minimum number of reviews. A few sponsors conducted additional reviews based 

on the number of meals or leftovers reported or after other methods had detected problems. 

 29During a review, monitors are required to observe all aspects of program operations—

before, during, and after meal service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service 2001). Monitors are not required to be present for the entire meal service during a site 

visit. State agencies may waive the site visit requirement for experienced sponsors that are 

SFAs. 

30During monitoring visits, sponsors are required to complete a monitoring form provided by 

the state agency (7 CFR 225.7[d][7]). These forms provide room to record such information as 

the time of the monitor’s arrival and departure, the site supervisor’s signature, a certification 

statement to be signed by the monitor, the number of meals prepared or delivered, the number of 

meals served to children, any deficiencies noted, the corrective actions taken by the sponsor, and 

the date of these actions. 

31This analysis does not include sponsors that reported only one site, as site-monitoring 

issues were less relevant for them. This restriction excluded 43 of the 126 sponsors. 

32However, as noted in the discussion of the data in Table III.19, about 10 percent of site 

supervisors from sites run by multisite sponsors reported that their sponsor had not yet visited 

their site. 
102 

TABLE III.21 

MULTISITE SPONSORS’ MONITORING OF SITES 

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Number and Length of Reviews 

Number of Reviews Planned (per Site) 

1 16 (4.4) 

2 46 (6.7) 

>2 38 (6.4) 

Average Length of Review (Hours) 

≤1 23 (6.6) 

1.1 to 2.0 39 (6.1) 

2.1 to 3.0 23 (5.6) 

3.1 to 4.0 1 (1.0) 

>4.0 14 (4.7) 

Mean 2.4 (0.2) 

Portion of All Reviews that Were Unannounced 

None 7 (3.4) 

Some, but no more than one-half 13 (4.4) 

More than one-half, but not all 8 (3.4) 

All 73 (6.2) 

Sample Size 83 — 

Sponsors Conducting Multiple Reviews 

How Sites Are Selected for More than One Reviewa

 

All sites monitored same number of times 51 (7.5) 

All sites monitored at least a minimum number of times 10 (3.8) 

No method indicated; monitoring “just done” 9 (5.4) 

Sites monitored daily or constantly 9 (4.5) 

Sites monitored at other intervals or on rotating basis 8 (4.2) 

When problems are indicated; as needed 3 (2.0) 

Based on number of meals or leftovers 2 (1.3) 

Sites randomly selected 1 (1.4) 

Other method 7 (4.0) 

Sample Size 51 —
TABLE III.21 (continued)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

103 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: This table includes only sponsors that had more than one site. Tabulations are 

weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. 

a

Thirteen sponsors were not asked this question because they conducted only one review per site. 

Eighteen sponsors excluded from this analysis reported conducting two reviews per site. A 

previous version of the questionnaire indicated that sponsors conducting two reviews per site 

should skip this question. A later version corrected this skip pattern. One sponsor is excluded 

from the analysis because the respondent did not know what selection method was used. 
104

E. VENDOR/FOOD SERVICE MANAGEMENT 

Because the quality of the meals provided to children is of the utmost importance to the 

SFSP, this study examined factors that influenced the sponsors’ decision to prepare their own 

meals or to contract with vendors instead; it also examined the ways that sponsors work with 

vendors.33,34 

• Eighty-two percent of sponsors (and almost all school sponsors) prepared their own 

meals. Many of these sponsors chose to do so because they had the necessary staff 

and facilities; in many cases, they viewed preparing meals as part of their mission (for 

example, because they were a school food service or a residential camp).

• Eighteen percent of sponsors contracted with vendors to provide meals. The ones that 

did so were relatively large; they operated 36 percent of the sites and served 

30 percent of the total meals. Vended sponsors were more likely to be government 

and National Youth Sports Program (NYSP) sponsors than were nonvended sponsors.

• About 80 percent of the sponsors that used vendors were very satisfied or somewhat 

satisfied with their choice. The main perceived advantages were saving the time and 

costs of preparing the meals. However, some sponsors that used vendors believed 

food from vendors may have been less appealing to children or less nutritious than 

self-prepared food. They also thought that logistical issues could pose challenges 

they would not encounter with self-prepared meals. 

• About 80 percent of sponsors that used vendors received only one bid for the 

contract.

• Most sponsors monitored their vendors at least weekly.

1. Use of Vendors 

As shown in Chapter II, although only 18 percent of sponsors contracted with vendors to 

provide meals, these sponsors served 30 percent of total meals, indicating they were larger than 

average in terms of total meals served. About one-third of sponsors that used vendors used SFAs 

as vendors, and two-thirds used private food service management companies (refer to Table II.2). 

Only 3 percent of school sponsors used a vendor (refer to Table II.4). 

 33This chapter focuses on the administrative aspects of preparing meals and working with 

vendors. The nutritional value of the meals and children’s preferences for certain types of foods 

are discussed in Chapter V. 

34Note that dividing the sample by the meal preparation method reduces the sample sizes for 

the analysis, which reduces the precision of the estimates. This effect is especially true for the 

analysis of sponsors that used vendors, because most sponsors prepared their own meals. 
105

The sample of vended sponsors in the survey is small, which makes it difficult to determine 

precisely how they differ from other sponsors. One difference that is statistically significant, 

even with this small sample, is that vended sponsors and nonvended sponsors were of different 

types (Table III.22). More than half (55 percent) of all vended sponsors were government 

sponsors. Relative to sponsors that prepared their own meals, vended sponsors were relatively 

more likely to be government and NYSP sponsors and were less likely to be school sponsors. 

2. Reasons Why Most Sponsors Prepared Meals 

Sponsors that prepared their own meals most often (36 percent) reported that they chose 

self-preparation because they already had the necessary facilities and staff and/or because they 

were a school food service or other organization that had food service as its function 

(Table III.23). Some sponsors also believed that (1) it was cheaper to prepare the meals 

themselves (25 percent); (2) self-preparation enabled them to provide higher-quality food, to 

adjust the food served to meet children’s preferences, or to provide a greater variety of foods 

(16 percent); and/or (3) preparing meals themselves was more convenient, for logistical reasons 

(16 percent).35 About 1 in 10 sponsors, most of which had rural sites, reported that they prepared 

their own meals because no vendors operated in their area.36 A few sponsors prepared their own 

meals to keep workers employed or to provide jobs. A few did so because they always had done 

so, and a few saw self-preparation as a way to maintain control over the process. 

3. Reasons Why Some Sponsors Contracted with Vendors 

Regulations require that SFSP vendors provide unitized meals, which must contain the 

required meal components as a single “package” or “unit.” (Milk or juice may be packaged 

separately or may be excluded from the unitized meal and obtained elsewhere.) A sponsor may 

request that the state provide an exception to the unitizing requirement for certain components of 

the meal (7 CFR 225.6[h][2][i]). 

Eighteen percent of the sponsors chose to contract with vendors. Most sponsors (81 percent) 

that contracted with vendors reported that they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the 

arrangement (Table III.24).37 When asked about the advantages of using vendors, the most 

 35Logistical reasons included better management of the schedule, food preparation, and 

service time. 

36Five of the seven sponsors that gave this reason operated only rural sites. However, the 

two other sponsors had no rural sites. 

37Although the weighted tabulations show that 19 percent of sponsors were not satisfied with 

their vendors, this group consists of only 2 of the 31 sponsors that used vendors, and 1 of the 2 

had a relatively large weight. The sponsor with the large weight reported that the main 

disadvantage of using vendors was the variety or quality of the food; the other sponsor reported 

logistical issues as the main disadvantage. 
106 

TABLE III.22

SPONSOR TYPE, BY SELF-PREPARED 

AND VENDED MEALS 

Type of Sponsor 

Percentage of 

Self-Preparation 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Vended 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

School 57 (6.4) 7 (7.0)** 

Government 5 (3.0) 55 (12.8) 

Camp/Upward 

Bound 19 (5.4) 16 (13.5) 

NYSP 1 (0.6) 9 (5.4) 

Nonprofit 

Organization 18 (4.8) 13 (7.7) 

Sample Size 95 — 31 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NYSP = National Youth Sports Program. 

**Distributions are significantly different at the .01 level, chi-squared test. 
107 

TABLE III.23 

REASONS SPONSORS PREPARE MEALS RATHER THAN 

CONTRACT WITH A VENDOR 

Reasona 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Already Have Facilities and Staff; Is a School or 

Meals/Nutrition/Food Service Program; Is the 

Organization’s Job 36 (6.0) 

Cheaper 25 (5.3) 

Higher-Quality Food; More Flexibility to Meet Children’s 

Dietary Needs/Preferences; More Meal Choices 16 (4.1) 

Convenience, Ease; Logistical Reasons 16 (4.2) 

Location; no Vendors in Area; Rural Area 11 (4.7) 

Always Has Self-Prepared Meals 9 (3.5) 

Keep Workers Employed; Provide Jobs 7 (2.7) 

More Control 5 (3.4) 

Appropriate or Beneficial for Programb 3 (1.8) 

Better Control of Food Quantity; Less Food Waste 2 (1.5) 

Other 8 (2.7) 

No Comments Given 2 (1.5) 

Sample Size 91 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: The sample is restricted to sponsors that did not use vendors. Four of the 95 sponsors 

that prepared meals on site or at a central kitchen are omitted because they did not 

answer this question. Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors 

nationally. 

a

Categories created by coding responses to an open-ended question on sponsor’s reasons for 

self-preparing meals rather than contracting with a vendor. Multiple responses allowed. 

b

No additional detail or clarification given. 
108 

TABLE III.24 

SPONSORS’ VIEWS ON ADVANTAGES AND 

DISADVANTAGES OF VENDORS 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Overall Satisfaction with Vendor 

 

Very satisfied 66 (13.2) 

Somewhat satisfied 15 (6.9) 

Not satisfied 19 (13.5) 

Main Advantagesa

 

Easy, convenient; no “hassle” with meal preparation 36 (13.2) 

Quality or variety of food 17 (8.6) 

Cheaper 14 (7.1) 

Vendors have staff, facilities, transportation; site does not 10 (4.6) 

Vendors have experience buying and preparing food 10 (7.4) 

Vendors are trained in sanitation and hygiene 10 (7.2) 

Vendor can deliver meals on time; food ready to eat when 

delivered 6 (5.0) 

Greater flexibility on participation levels allowed 3 (2.5) 

Can deliver food efficiently 3 (2.4) 

Location issues 2 (2.1) 

Other 10 (6.1) 

No comments given 6 (5.7) 

Main Disadvantages (n = 28)a 

 

Food variety or quality 46 (13.5) 

Logistical issues 22 (9.3) 

Cost 10 (7.0) 

None; no comments given 21 (8.7) 

Sample Size 31 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: The sample is restricted to sponsors that used vendors. Tabulations are weighted to be 

representative of sponsors nationally. 

a

Categories created by coding responses to open-ended questions on the sponsor’s perceived main 

advantages or disadvantages of vendor-provided meals. Multiple responses allowed. 
109

frequent comment (reported by 36 percent of vended sponsors) was that vendors were easy or 

convenient to use. It is likely that giving the responsibility for meal preparation to vendors 

greatly simplified the sponsors’ day-to-day operations, especially for sponsors whose primary 

focus was to offer activities rather than meals to children. Many sponsors also perceived other 

advantages to using vendors. They believed that vendors (1) were able to provide a higher 

quality or greater variety of food; (2) were cheaper; or (3) already had the necessary staff, 

equipment, and experience, which they (or their sites) would have to obtain. 

When asked about disadvantages of using vendors, 46 percent of the sponsors that used 

vendors raised issues of food quality or variety (for example, lack of choice of foods, food 

temperature, or food quantity). Twenty-two percent reported concerns about logistics, including 

delivery problems, scheduling problems, difficulty adjusting the number of meals, or the need to 

consult with non-SFSP staff to resolve problems. 

4. Selecting and Monitoring Vendors 

Sponsors that wish to use private vendors must adhere to a competitive bidding process, 

unless they have a vendor contract in the amount of $10,000 or less (7 CFR 225.15[g][4]).38 The 

bidding process includes public announcements of the proposed contract and public opening of 

the bids. The invitation to bid must include specifications of food and meal quality standards 

and a menu on which the bid is based. State agencies must be allowed to monitor the bidding 

process and must grant approval for bids above the lowest-cost bid before sponsors can accept 

them.39

Although competitive bidding is encouraged, 80 percent of sponsors that used vendors in 

2001 reported receiving only one bid (Table III.25).40,41 Thus, although most sponsors were 

satisfied with their vendors, they may have no alternative should they ever become dissatisfied. 

 38Sponsors that use an SFA and schools that have an exclusive contract with a private 

vendor for year-round service are exempt from this regulation. 

39States also must approve the acceptance of extremely large bids. 

40Most of the sponsors that used private vendors received only one bid, as did most sponsors 

that used SFAs. 

41Effective December 2000, a state agency no longer had to require that vendors operating 

within the state register with it (Federal Register 2000; 7 CFR 225.6[g]). Most administrators of 

state agencies that dropped the registration requirement reported that some aspects of the vendor 

process remained unchanged (such as the number of vendors interested in participating in the 

SFSP), or that they did not know whether dropping vendor registration had any effects (data not 

shown). Sponsors in these states also were generally unaware of any effects of this change in 

regulations. One possible explanation is that states that found vendor registration to be useful 

maintained the requirement. 
110 

TABLE III.25 

VENDOR BIDS AND VENDOR MONITORING 

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Number of Vendors Submitting Bids

 

1 80 (8.7) 

2 or 3 18 (8.4) 

≥4 2 (1.5) 

Monitoring Strategies 

 

Talk to site personnel 95 (4.7) 

Conduct SFSP site visits 84 (7.2) 

Check contract specifications against 

delivered meals 80 (10.5) 

Visit vendors’ facilities 58 (12.4) 

Other 11 (6.3) 

Vendors Monitored:

 

Dailya 11 (6.5) 

Weekly 56 (12.4) 

Monthly 8 (7.5) 

When problems are suspected 16 (7.3) 

At certain intervals and when needed or 

requested by sitesa 7 (4.4) 

Othera

 3 (2.6) 

Sample Size 31 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: The sample is restricted to sponsors that used vendors. Tabulations are weighted to be 

representative of sponsors nationally. Because of missing data, sample sizes for 

specific items range from 28 to 31. 

a

Categories constructed from “other (specify)” responses. 
111

Sponsors used several strategies to monitor vendors (Table III.25). Almost all reported 

holding discussions with site staff, conducting site visits, and checking whether the delivered 

meals met contract specifications. About three-fifths of sponsors also reported that they visited 

the vendors’ facilities. About two-thirds conducted these monitoring visits at least weekly. 

113

IV. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND OUTREACH 

The number of children served by the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is 

substantially lower than the number who receive free or reduced-price meals through the 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) during the school year. Recently, the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture has expressed a renewed commitment to expanding the availability of summer 

meals to children from low-income families (Food and Nutrition Service 2002d). Thus, one key 

research focus of this study was an exploration of the factors that affect the participation of 

sponsors and children. The study (1) explored staffs’ views on barriers to participation; 

(2) described the activities currently used to increase sponsors’ and children’s participation, 

referred to broadly as “outreach”; (3) considered the outcomes of sponsors’ outreach efforts by 

analyzing the characteristics of new sponsors relative to continuing sponsors; and (4) examined 

issues of sponsor retention by obtaining state administrators’ perspectives on sponsor retention, 

comparing the characteristics of current and former sponsors, and asking former sponsors why 

they left the SFSP. 

The exploration produced the following key findings: 

• It is important to place the SFSP’s participation challenges in a realistic context.

State administrators emphasized that comparisons with the NSLP must recognize that 

the SFSP is available primarily in low-income areas and does not always provide 

transportation, whereas the NSLP is available everywhere, provides meals to a 

“captive audience” of children who are required to attend school, and benefits from 

transportation of students to and from school. 

• State administrators believed that lack of transportation, lack of activities, and lack 

of knowledge about the program were the major barriers to children’s 

participation; they believed that low reimbursement rates and time-consuming 

paperwork discouraged potential sponsors from participating.

• Many sponsors believed their local areas were well covered, and most site 

supervisors felt they could serve more children at their sites. Many site supervisors 

and sponsors felt they were meeting current demand in their communities; however, 

they also reported that lack of transportation and other barriers may have limited 

some children’s participation at established sites. 

• State administrators cited personal contact as the most successful approach to 

recruiting new sponsors. One-on-one meetings enable state agencies to respond to 

sponsors’ concerns about the complexities of managing the SFSP, present the positive 

aspects of the program, and provide assurance of assistance from the state. 

• Most sponsors conducted activities to increase participation at their sites, and most 

site supervisors believed that publicity about their sites was adequate. Typical 

outreach activities included publicity through media channels and neighborhood 

flyers, collaboration with schools, and direct mail or telephone recruitment of parents. 
114

• Of the 10 percent of sponsors that were new, one-half were school districts and 

one-third were nonprofit organizations. The proportion of new sponsors that were 

nonprofit organizations was twice as large as the proportion of continuing sponsors 

that were nonprofits. New sponsors were smaller than continuing sponsors, and 

fewer offered breakfast and supper. 

• About 8 percent of sponsors left the SFSP between 2000 and 2001. Former 

sponsors disproportionately were small, new, or nonprofit organizations. Nearly 

all these sponsors left the program by choice, and their sites usually were not picked 

up by other sponsors. Inadequate reimbursement rates and time-consuming 

paperwork were the main reasons why sponsors left; each reason was cited by about 

45 percent of former sponsors. Low participation levels were a contributing factor for 

about 40 percent of former sponsors. 

A. STAFFS’ VIEWS ON PARTICIPATION LEVELS 

Staff at all levels of the SFSP, from state administrators to site supervisors, cited a 

substantial number of barriers they believed impeded children’s participation. In addition, state 

and sponsor staff cited issues they believed discouraged sponsors’ participation. Many sponsors, 

however, felt there was little unmet demand in the areas they served, and most site supervisors 

reported they had the capacity to serve more children. This seemingly contradictory pattern of 

findings may indicate that most unserved children live in areas that have no SFSP sponsors (and 

thus no SFSP sites), or it may indicate that current sponsors and sites are not addressing barriers 

faced by children in the areas they serve; it also is possible both factors are at work. Although 

other types of research are necessary to assess the relative importance of barriers to sponsors’

participation versus children’s participation, staffs’ views provide important insights into the 

types of barriers that exist at each level. 

1. State Administrators’ Views on Participation 

State administrators typically have detailed knowledge of both SFSP rules and day-to-day 

operations, as well as extensive experience in attempts to expand the program. These staff also 

must overcome diverse challenges, ranging from supporting large numbers of sponsors with 

varied needs to finding and assisting sponsors in heavily rural areas. To tap this range of 

experience about SFSP participation, state administrators were asked the following open-ended 

question: “In your opinion, what are the reasons that so few children participate in the Summer 

Food program as compared to the National School Lunch Program?” Because the wording of 

the question mentioned “children,” some respondents focused on issues related to the family’s 

decision to send their child to an existing SFSP site. Other respondents also discussed sponsors’

barriers to participation, as sponsors are necessary if children are to have sites to which to go. 

a. Limitations of Direct Comparisons of the SFSP and the NSLP 

An important theme that several administrators mentioned in response to the open-ended 

question is that comparisons of the SFSP and the NSLP are not entirely appropriate. First, the 
115

NSLP operates in almost every school district; by contrast, the function of the SFSP’s area 

eligibility rules is to target areas with high concentrations of poverty, even though not all lowincome children live in high-poverty areas. About one-fifth of state administrators noted that 

area eligibility rules limit the availability of sites to some children; five administrators 

(9 percent) commented that sites or sponsors were not always available where children lived 

(Table IV.1). Second, a few administrators reported that the SFSP cannot be expected to serve 

children who are served during the summer by other programs, such as the NSLP or the Child 

and Adult Care Food Program. Third, because the NSLP is offered while children are at school, 

it operates in a setting that children must attend (administrators referred to the children as “a 

captive audience”), and that offers transportation services. Five state administrators (9 percent) 

noted that SFSP attendance is voluntary, and nearly half of all administrators surveyed 

mentioned the lack of transportation as a barrier to participation, particularly in rural areas. 

b. Factors that Limit Participation 

More state administrators mentioned lack of transportation than any other factor as the factor 

limiting children’s participation in the SFSP. Other frequently cited factors included a lack of 

activities at program sites and ignorance about the program’s existence. Given that nearly all 

sites offer some activities (see Chapter II), it is interesting that about one-quarter of state 

administrators reported lack of activities as a problem. These administrators may have been 

thinking in terms of the need to ensure that new sponsors are able to offer activities, may have 

believed the range of activities to be too limited to attract children, or may have been concerned 

that some open sites offered activities only for some children. Other, less frequently mentioned 

factors included children’s attitudes, particularly about attending school sites during the summer; 

stigma; a limited variety of foods (“always sandwiches”); and an operating schedule for many 

SFSP sites that did not cover the entire summer. 

Many of the administrators who focused on factors limiting sponsors’ participation cited low 

reimbursement rates (“it is not worth it for sponsors to run the program for 3 months”); a 

paperwork burden associated with running the SFSP that made it difficult to attract schools as 

sponsors; and other challenges to convincing schools to participate, such as the desire of school 

officials to leave buildings unoccupied, so staff could perform maintenance on the buildings or 

take time off. Some state administrators also mentioned security or liability issues as factors, 

including neighborhood safety, liability with respect to operating outdoor sites, and concerns that 

schools running open sites cannot monitor who enters the school. Only two state administrators 

mentioned lack of outreach to sponsors; state administrators focused on administrative 

requirements and reimbursement rates as making the program unattractive.1

 1

Some state administrators simply made such comments as, “It is a well-kept secret.” These 

responses were categorized as families’ lack of knowledge, but they might have referred to 

potential sponsors. 
116 

TABLE IV.1 

STATE ADMINISTRATORS’ VIEWS ON WHY PARTICIPATION IS LOW 

Reasons for Low Participation (Relative to NSLP)a

Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Child Participation Issues 

Transportation problems 26 48.1 

Need activities in conjunction with meals 14 25.9 

Lack of knowledge about the program 12 22.2 

Area eligibility rules limit availability 11 20.4 

Children want to stay home/avoid school 6 11.1 

Attendance is not requiredb

 6 11.1 

Lack of sponsors/sites where children live 5 9.3 

Stigma 5 9.3 

Lack of variety in foods offered 5 9.3 

Programs not open long enough 4 7.4 

Children attend alternate programs 3 5.6 

Sponsor Participation Issuesc 

Sponsors’ difficulty breaking even due to reimbursement 

rates or rules 8 14.8 

Schools do not want to participate due to paperwork, 

requirements 7 13.0 

Schools have other priorities or do not want to participate 

for unspecified reasons 6 11.1 

Security or liability concerns at sites 6 11.1 

Sponsor application requirements are discouraging 4 7.4 

Staffing problems 4 7.4 

Insufficient outreach to potential sponsors 2 3.7 

Too much paperwork 2 3.7 

Other 7 13.0 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

NOTE: This table reflects coding of responses to an open-ended question. 

a

Multiple responses allowed. 

b

In comparison, children are required to attend school, where the NSLP is offered. 

c

Although the question was worded in such a way as to inquire why few children participate in the SFSP, 

many answers addressed the issue of why potential sponsors do not participate. 

NSLP = National School Lunch Program. 
117

2. Sponsors’ and Former Sponsors’ Views on Participation and Program Expansion 

SFSP sponsors and former sponsors provided an additional level of understanding about the 

challenges to participation that the SFSP must overcome. Because they direct or closely monitor 

site operations, sponsors may learn about day-to-day barriers that limit children’s participation. 

Some also responded in terms of barriers that sponsors face, perhaps drawing on their 

experiences in deciding whether to expand their sites, or their decisions to enter or leave the 

SFSP. Because barriers to both sponsors’ and children’s participation may affect program 

attrition, this section discusses the perceptions of current and former sponsors. 

a. Barriers to Participation 

As Table IV.2 shows, 93 percent of current sponsors and 91 percent of former sponsors 

identified specific barriers to participation in the SFSP. When asked about the “main barriers to 

increased participation,” sponsors cited many of the same challenges that state administrators 

mentioned; also like state administrators, they identified barriers that affected children’s 

participation directly and barriers that affected it indirectly, by first affecting the participation of 

sponsors. 

About half the current and former sponsors mentioned resource and logistical constraints as 

key barriers to participation. As was the case with state administrators, the most commonly 

mentioned barrier was a lack of transportation (mentioned by 23 percent of current sponsors and 

39 percent of former sponsors). One-tenth of current sponsors mentioned lack of capacity at 

current facilities and/or the need for additional site locations. Other resource and logistical 

barriers, cited by a smaller number of sponsors, included lack of support from schools or 

community groups, inadequate numbers of staff or volunteers, and inadequate funding. 

About 1 in 3 current and former sponsors identified lack of outreach, interest, or demand as 

limiting participation. Sixteen percent of current sponsors considered insufficient or poorly 

targeted outreach an important barrier. Fourteen percent cited a lack of demand for the program, 

indicating that the community need is being met through the SFSP or through other programs, so 

that expansion is unwarranted. In addition, 9 percent of current sponsors and 12 percent of 

former sponsors mentioned low levels of parental motivation and the role of stigma as deterrents 

to children’s participation. 

b. Sponsors’ Interest in Expanding the Number of Sites or the Length of the Summer 

Session 

Most sponsors were not interested in increasing participation by expanding the number of 

sites or the length of their summer session (Table IV.3). About half the sponsors (59 percent of 

all sponsors and 47 percent of sponsors operating open sites) were “not too interested” or “not at 
118 

TABLE IV.2 

SPONSORS’ IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAIN BARRIERS 

TO INCREASED PARTICIPATION 

Main Barriers to Increased Participation 

Percentage of 

Current 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Former 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Resource/Logistical Constraints 48 (5.6) 58 (5.2) 

Transportation/distance of children from 

site(s) 23 (4.0) 39 (5.3) 

Lack of capacity or additional locations for 

sites needed 10 (3.4) 7 (2.1) 

Need more schools as sites, more support and 

coordination from schools and other 

community groups 8 (3.0) 1 (1.0) 

Lack of staff or volunteers 6 (2.8) 1 (0.8) 

Weather, heat, or lack of air-conditioning 5 (2.2) 1 (0.6) 

Insufficient funding 5 (2.1) 10 (3.4) 

Lack of activities or no funding for activities 3 (1.5) 3 (1.3) 

 

Outreach/Interest/Demand Constraints 38 (5.3) 35 (5.1) 

Need more or better-targeted outreach 16 (4.4) 18 (3.8) 

Lack of interest or demand, competition from 

other programs, or need is being met 14 (4.2) 7 (2.7) 

Parent/caregiver motivation; stigma/not 

wanting handouts 9 (3.0) 12 (3.8) 

Program tied to summer school or 

participation falls after summer 

school ends 1 (1.1) 1 (0.8) 

 

Program Rules 14 (4.1) 14 (3.6) 

Enrolled program or eligibility requirements 8 (3.6) 1 (0.8) 

Paperwork or program rules 6 (2.1) 13 (3.5) 

Othera

 9 (3.1) 10 (3.3) 

 

No Barriers Reported 7 (3.2) 9 (2.7) 

Sample Size 124 — 130 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Former Sponsor and Sponsor Surveys (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors and former sponsors nationally. These 

tabulations represent coding of responses to an open-ended question. Multiple responses were 

allowed. 

a

Includes safety issues, illegal immigrants’ fear of government programs, children’s lack of interest or comfort 

at the site, lack of foods children like, and language or cultural barriers. 
119 

TABLE IV.3 

SPONSORS’ INTEREST IN EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF SITES 

Interest Level in 

Expanding the 

Number of Sites 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Open 

Sponsorsa 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Enrolled 

Sponsorsb 

Standard 

Error 

Very Interested 20 (3.7) 26 (4.7) 6 (4.1) 

Somewhat Interested 22 (4.1) 27 (5.2) 11 (6.3) 

Not too Interested 20 (4.9) 18 (5.0) 24 (10.4) 

Not at All Interested 39 (6.0) 29 (6.9) 59 (11.3) 

Sample Size 126 — 95 — 31 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. 

a

Sponsors that have only open sites or a combination of open and enrolled sites. 

b

Sponsors that have enrolled, camp, or National Youth Sports Program sites. 
120

all interested” in expanding the number of their summer food sites.2 Only 20 percent of all 

sponsors indicated that they were “very interested” in operating more sites; 26 percent of open 

sponsors were “very interested” in operating more sites. Fully 83 percent of sponsors operating 

enrolled or camp sites were “not too interested” or “not at all interested” in expanding. 

Sponsors who did not wish to expand most commonly mentioned lack of demand as the 

explanation (Table IV.4). In this group, half of all sponsors (52 percent) and nearly threequarters of open-site sponsors (72 percent) explained that their area already was well covered. 

Additional frequently mentioned reasons included lack of available locations for sites 

(mentioned by 41 percent of all sponsors), insufficient staff (mentioned by 33 percent), 

reluctance of schools to provide food service or staff during the summer (mentioned by 

15 percent), and difficulty finding a partner to help with outreach (mentioned by 12 percent). 

Nineteen percent of all sponsors indicated that they did not wish to expand their food program to 

other locations because they were a camp or single-site program. 

Twenty-seven percent of sponsors asked about their willingness to increase the length of 

their summer session reported that their program did run all summer; 51 percent were unwilling 

to do so, and 23 percent were willing (Table IV.5).3,4 Many sponsors who did not want to extend 

their program calendar cited external constraints as factors (for example, school districts’ plans 

to perform kitchen maintenance during the off-season or firmly established summer school 

schedules). Compared with sponsors whose main purpose is to feed children, many SFSP 

programs associated with structured activity programs (such as summer school, NYSP, or 

residential camp) have less flexibility in establishing operating dates. In addition to these 

reasons, some sponsors who did not want to extend the session also cited staffing constraints (in 

particular, staff’s desire for vacation time), inadequate financial resources, and their belief that an 

extended program would not be cost-effective because participation usually dropped 

considerably during the late summer or after scheduled activities had ended. 

At the same time, 27 percent of open sponsors and 13 percent of enrolled sponsors were 

willing to extend the summer session. Technical assistance targeted to sponsors willing to 

 2

To illuminate some analyses, we divide sponsors into “open sponsors,” which have at least 

one open site, and “enrolled sponsors,” which have only enrolled, camp, or National Youth 

Sports Program (NYSP) sites. Enrolled and camp sponsors have structured activity programs 

that require more-extensive resources and thus are likely to face more capacity constraints; in 

addition, serving meals is generally not their primary mission. Thus, we would expect these 

sponsors to have less interest in outreach and expansion. 

3

The survey did not ask why those who were willing to extend their session had not done so. 

4

Based on weighted tabulations of the characteristics of sponsors who reported that they 

already operated all summer (n = 42), 25 percent actually were open for at least 70 days (10 

weeks), 47 percent were open for 60 to 69 days, and 28 percent were open for fewer than 60 

days. This finding suggests widely varying interpretations of “all summer.”
121 

TABLE IV.4 

REASONS FOR SPONSORS’ LACK OF INTEREST 

IN EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF SITES 

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Open Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Reasons 

Lack of demand, area is well covered 52 (8.0) 72 (8.2) 

Lack of available site locations 41 (7.4) 46 (9.1) 

Insufficient staff 33 (7.1) 24 (8.6) 

Camp/single-site programa

 (n = 60) 19 (6.2) 7 (4.7) 

School food services not interested or not 

able to provide summer staff 15 (5.1) 21 (8.2) 

Cannot find partner to help with outreach 12 (4.4) 19 (7.3) 

Schools offer NSLP or are open 

 year-round 9 (3.4) 14 (5.7) 

Funding too lowa

 (n = 60) 7 (4.5) 1 (0.5) 

Already operating at or near maximum 

capacitya

 (n = 60) 6 (5.1) 2 (1.2) 

Too much paperworka

 (n = 60) 2 (1.2) 3 (2.1) 

Main Reason (n = 59) 

 

Lack of demand, area is well covered 39 (8.7) 54 (10.9) 

Camp/single-site programa

 19 (6.2) 7 (4.7) 

Insufficient staff 11 (4.9) 15 (8.1) 

Lack of available site locations 10 (3.7) 11 (4.5) 

Funding too lowa

 7 (4.5) 1 (0.5) 

Already operating at or near maximum 

capacitya

 6 (5.1) 2 (1.2) 

Schools offer NSLP or are open 

 year-round 3 (2.3) 6 (4.2) 

School food services not interested or not 

able to provide summer staff 3 (2.7) 0 (0.0) 

Too much paperworka

 2 (1.2) 3 (2.1) 

Cannot find partner to help with outreach 1 (1.3) 2 (2.3) 

Sample Size 61 — 37 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTES: The sample is restricted to sponsors who reported that they were “not too interested” or “not at all 

interested” in expanding the number of their SFSP sites. Tabulations are weighted to be representative of 

sponsors nationally. 

 Open sponsors are sponsors that have only open sites or a combination of open and enrolled sites. Enrolled 

sponsors are not shown separately because of the small sample size. 

a

These answers were given in response to a question about “any other reason” why the sponsor was not interested in 

expanding the number of sites. 

NSLP = National School Lunch Program. 
122 

TABLE IV.5 

SPONSORS’ VIEWS ON INCREASING THE LENGTH OF THE SUMMER SESSION 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Open 

Sponsorsa 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Enrolled 

Sponsorsb 

Standard 

Error 

Willingness to Increase Session 

Length 

Yes 23 (4.2) 27 (5.9) 13 (6.8) 

No 51 (5.7) 40 (6.6) 73 (8.9) 

Program already runs 

all summer 27 (4.9) 33 (6.1) 14 (6.2) 

Sample Size 125 — 95 — 30 — 

Reason for Unwillingness to 

Increase Session Lengthc

 

School or summer school 

schedule, school district 

decision, need to clean 

kitchens during break 

time, or space constraints 32 (6.6) 

Grant funds regulate or 

require the number of 

weeks; schedule based on 

another program’s length 

of operation 24 (7.9) 

Staff need vacation time, 

employees’ other 

commitments, lack of staff 22 (7.0) 

Financial constraints, cannot 

afford it 20 (6.4) 

Decrease in participation (in 

late summer or after 

activities end) 7 (3.7) 

Already as long as can be 5 (2.7) 

Other 9 (4.4) 

Sample Size 57 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: The bottom panel of the table is restricted to sponsors that were unwilling to increase the length of the 

summer session. Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. 

a

Open sponsors are sponsors that have only open sites or a combination of open and enrolled sites. 

b

Enrolled sponsors are sponsors that have enrolled, camp, or National Youth Sports Program sites. 

c

These answers were constructed from responses to an open-ended question about why the sponsor would not be willing 

to increase the length of the summer session. 
123

expand the number of sites or extend the length of the program may be an effective way to 

increase program participation. 

3. Site Supervisors’ Views on Capacity Constraints and Barriers to Participation 

Eighty-five percent of site supervisors did not believe that program capacity constraints or 

enrollment limits prevented interested children who live near their site from receiving services 

(Table IV.6). According to the site supervisors, although 18 percent of sites were unable to serve 

additional children, about half estimated they could serve 1 to 50 additional children, and 

one-third estimated they could serve more than 50 additional children. Although most site 

supervisors did not see capacity constraints or enrollment limits as preventing children from 

receiving services, it is not clear whether they held this belief because all interested children 

were being served or because other barriers prevented local children from attending the site. 

Supervisors of open sites and supervisors of enrolled sites (including camps) had different 

perceptions about capacity or enrollment constraints.5 Open sites often can adjust their capacity 

to serve more children as necessary (for example, by ordering more meals). Not only are 

enrolled sites reimbursed only for meals served to enrolled children, but those sites generally 

provide structured activity programs in addition to feeding programs that may create capacity 

constraints preventing them from increasing enrollment. Only 8 percent of supervisors of open 

sites reported that capacity constraints or enrollment limits prevented children from being served 

(Table IV.6). By contrast, one-quarter of supervisors of enrolled sites believed that interested 

children were not being served. 

Family barriers may prevent some children from participating in the SFSP, even at open 

sites with the capacity to serve them. Two-thirds of site supervisors identified at least one family 

barrier limiting participation at their site (Table IV.7). Lack of transportation, reported by 

33 percent, was the most commonly cited barrier.6

 Twenty-six percent of site supervisors 

believed that insufficient program publicity prevented some children and parents from becoming 

aware of the program. Other barriers, mentioned by at least one-tenth of site supervisors, 

included limited hours of program operations (a problem for working parents who need all-day 

care for their children), unappetizing food, lack of activities, and site locations in unsafe 

neighborhoods. Fewer than 10 percent mentioned embarrassment or stigma, and fewer than 

4 percent perceived low levels of parents’ or children’s motivation to be a significant barrier. 

Supervisors of open sites mentioned more and somewhat different barriers than did 

supervisors of enrolled sites. (As with sponsors, enrolled sites are defined here to include camp 

and NYSP sites.) Supervisors at open sites were much more likely than those at enrolled sites to 

mention lack of transportation (36 percent versus 17 percent), lack of publicity (27 percent 

 5

Camp and NYSP sites are included with enrolled sites. 

6

About half the supervisors of rural sites (49 percent), in particular, reported transportation 

as a barrier (n = 57). Rural sites were classified as rural based on interviewer observation. 
124

TABLE IV.6 

SITE CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS ON PARTICIPATION 

 Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Open Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Enrolled Sitesa 

Standard 

Error 

Capacity Constraints or 

Enrollment Limits Prevent 

Participation 

 

Yes 11 (2.9) 8 (3.1) 25 (8.6) 

No 85 (3.5) 88 (3.8) 73 (8.7) 

Don’t know 4 (1.5) 4 (1.7) 2 (1.6) 

Number of Additional 

Children Site Could Serve 

in Existing Facility 

 

0 18 (3.9) 17 (4.6) 21 (6.6) 

1 to 25 25 (4.8) 20 (5.3) 51 (11.9) 

26 to 50 23 (3.6) 27 (4.0) 6 (4.1) 

51 to 100 18 (4.0) 19 (4.5) 14 (8.1) 

≥101 16 (3.4) 18 (4.0) 7 (4.4) 

Don’t know 1 (0.3) 0 (0.2) 2 (1.6) 

 

Median 29.8 (6.8) 39.5 (8.4) 9.0 (5.1) 

Mean 77.2 (11.5) 84.5 (13.8) 41.7 (15.8) 

Sample Size 162 — 120 — 42 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Interview (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sites nationally. 

a

Enrolled sites include camp and National Youth Sports Program sites. 
125

TABLE IV.7 

SITE SUPERVISORS’ VIEWS ON BARRIERS TO CHILDRENS’ PARTICIPATION AT SITE 

Barriers 

Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Open Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Enrolled Sitesa 

Standard 

Error 

Lack of Transportation 33 (6.0) 36 (7.0) 17 (8.3) 

Lack of Publicity 26 (4.5) 27 (6.3) 17 (8.9) 

Limited Hours 17 (3.9) 18 (4.5) 10 (5.4) 

Children Do Not Like the 

Food 16 (3.2) 18 (3.5) 6 (5.8) 

Lack of/Types of Activities 12 (3.8) 14 (4.5) 0 (0.3) 

Unsafe Neighborhood 11 (3.6) 13 (4.2) 0 (0.0) 

Embarrassment/Stigma 10 (2.5) 11 (6.8) 4 (4.1) 

Limited Capacity/Enrolled 

Siteb,c 8 (3.2) 6 (2.8) 17 (9.4) 

Moneyb

 8 (2.8) 6 (3.1) 16 (11.0) 

Motivation (of Parents or 

Children)b,d 4 (2.2) 3 (2.2) 7 (6.9) 

Otherb,e 4 (1.8) 2 (1.5) 11 (7.3) 

No Barriersb

 33 (4.2) 31 (4.7) 39 (9.7) 

Sample Size 162 — 120 — 42 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Interview (2001). 

NOTE: Multiple responses allowed; will not sum to 100 percent. Tabulations are weighted to be representative 

of sites nationally. 

 Sample sizes for specific items are slightly less than shown (ranging from 150 to 162 for the full site 

sample), because of missing data. 

a

Includes camp and National Youth Sports Program sites. 

b

These responses were volunteered. 

c

Includes enrolled sites, no activities for nonenrolled children, and limited capacity. 

d

Includes lack of parental motivation, home neglect, parents missing the registration deadline, and children staying 

home to watch television. 

e

Includes distance to the site, other time commitments (job/family), nonenrolled children’s suspicions about 

religious groups, and smaller children’s feelings of intimidation by high school students. 
126

versus 17 percent), limited hours (18 percent versus 10 percent), children’s dislike of the food 

(18 percent versus 6 percent), lack of activities (14 percent versus less than 1 percent), an unsafe 

neighborhood (13 percent versus 0 percent), and stigma (11 percent versus 4 percent). Not 

surprisingly, supervisors at enrolled sites were more likely to mention that children were 

prevented from attending because the site had limited capacity or was enrolled (17 percent versus 

6 percent at open sites), or because of the cost of the program (16 percent versus 6 percent at 

open sites). 

B. EFFORTS TO EXPAND THE PROGRAM 

Because the SFSP always has served significantly fewer children than do the free and 

reduced-price components of the NSLP, efforts to expand the availability of summer meals are 

of particular interest. This section describes the outreach activities currently used to increase 

sponsors’ and children’s participation. 

1. State Agency Outreach 

Most state agencies conduct extensive outreach for the SFSP, very often in cooperation with 

partner organizations. All of them conduct some outreach to attract new sponsors ranging from 

one or two mailings to very extensive activities, depending on the size of the state and number of 

staff available. Many state agencies also provide general information about the SFSP to anyone 

interested (for example, through brochures or a Web site), publicize the program to potential 

sponsors and the public at large, and develop materials for sponsors’ use in publicizing the 

program. 

State administrators most frequently mentioned personal contacts as their most successful 

approach to recruiting new sponsors. Their belief in the usefulness of this method is consistent 

with the fact that they also believe the SFSP’s complex paperwork and financial management 

requirements discourage sponsors from participating (see Section A.1 of this chapter). Personal 

contacts enable the state administrators to present the positive aspects of the program, and to 

reassure potential sponsors that help will be available. 

a. Partner Organizations 

About 9 out of 10 state administrators reported that their agencies work with other 

organizations on outreach (Table IV.8). More than half collaborated with nutrition or antihunger 

advocacy groups or food banks. Many of these groups are affiliated with the Food Research and 

Action Center (FRAC) and may have learned about the SFSP through FRAC’s Campaign to End 

Childhood Hunger.7

 7

Several state administrators mentioned FRAC or the Campaign to End Childhood Hunger 

by name. 
127

TABLE IV.8 

STATE AGENCIES’ WORK WITH PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS 

 Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

State Works with Other Organizations on 

Outreach 

Yes 49 90.7 

No 5 9.3 

Types of Partner Organizationsa 

Nutrition or antihunger advocacy group or 

food bank 28 51.9 

Community-based organization and 

coalition 18 33.3 

Department of agriculture (federal or state 

level) or cooperative extension 9 16.7 

Business organization or media 9 16.7 

School and school district 7 13.0 

WIC, Food Stamp Program, or other 

federal nutrition program 7 13.0 

Department of education (includes 

 Title 1 programs)b 6 11.1 

Local government or local government 

groups (mayor’s groups, others) 6 11.1 

Religious organizations 4 7.4 

State or local parks and recreation 

department 4 7.4 

Local health department 3 5.6 

Other state agencies 8 14.8 

Otherc 14 25.9 

None 5 9.3 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

Multiple responses allowed. 

b

Counted only if the state agency is not part of the State Department of Education. 

c

Includes migrant programs; statewide organizations of human services professionals, Upward Bound 

programs, and Housing Authorities; children’s advocates; and foundations. 

WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. 
128

Many state agencies (33 percent) work with community-based organizations or statewide 

coalitions of these groups; examples of community groups mentioned include Community 

Action Agencies, YMCAs, and Boys and Girls Clubs. Other common types of partners include 

state departments of agriculture or cooperative extension agents (mentioned by 17 percent) and 

business and media groups, such as Chambers of Commerce or radio stations that run public 

service announcements (mentioned by 17 percent). State agencies also work with other state 

agencies, particularly departments of education (when the state agency is not part of that 

department), school districts, local offices of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children or of the Food Stamp Program, local government groups, parks 

and recreation departments at the state or local level, local health departments, and religious 

organizations. 

b. Approaches to Recruiting New Sponsors 

State administrators reported using a wide range of approaches to recruit new sponsors 

(Table IV.9).8 The four most commonly mentioned approaches were general mailings 

(mentioned by 43 percent); presentations about the SFSP at conferences of groups that may 

include potential sponsors (mentioned by 39 percent); publicity about the SFSP through press 

releases, public service announcements, or newspaper articles (37 percent); and one-on-one 

recruiting efforts (28 percent). In addition to the general mailings, 12 state administrators 

(22 percent) mentioned using targeted mailings, such as mailings to all school districts serving 

low-income areas, and 5 administrators (9 percent) mentioned sending letters signed by a 

prominent person, such as the governor or the head of the state’s department of education, in 

order to attract attention.9

Other activities were mentioned by only a few state administrators but may be of interest to 

others. For example, six state administrators reported offering toll-free numbers to enable callers 

to obtain information about the SFSP. Four state agencies encouraged current sponsors to spread 

the word to potential sponsors, and the administrator of one state agency mentioned personalized 

invitations to potential sponsors to attend informational meetings and training. Four state 

agencies showed an outreach video (prepared by the Food and Nutrition Service [FNS]), and two 

had Web sites about their program. 

 8

The question on recruitment methods was open-ended. Responses should therefore be seen 

as a lower bound on the number of agencies using a particular method, as state administrators 

may not have provided an inclusive list. (Many did mention a wide range of outreach activities.) 

9

It is possible that some of the state administrators who mentioned “mailings” used some of 

these approaches. The “general mailings” category includes only state administrators who did 

not mention mailings targeted to specific audiences or signed by a prominent individual. 
129

TABLE IV.9 

STATE AGENCIES’ EFFORTS TO ATTRACT SPONSORS 

 Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Types of Outreach to Attract New 

Sponsorsa 

Mailings, Including Letters, Flyers, 

Brochuresb 23 42.6 

Presentations at Conferences or Meetings of 

Relevant Groups 21 38.9 

General Publicity About Program in Public 

Service Announcements, Articles, Press 

Releases 20 37.0 

One-on-One Contact with Potential 

Sponsors 15 27.8 

Outreach to Partner Organizations or Groups 

of Potential Sponsors 13 24.1 

Targeted Letters (to School Districts or 

Groups of Potential Sponsors) 12 22.2 

Working with Advocates to Promote 

Program 9 16.7 

Research/Development of Lists of Potential 

Sponsors 8 14.8 

Meetings with Groups of Potential Sponsors 6 11.1 

Toll-Free Number/Hotline 6 11.1 

Letters Signed by a Prominent Person 5 9.3 

Notices in School Food Service 

Organizations’ Newsletters 4 7.4 

Outreach Video 4 7.4 

Word-of-Mouth from Other Sponsors 4 7.4 

Web Site 2 3.7 

Personal Invitations to Outreach Events and 

Training 1 1.9 

Working with USDA or Other State 

Agencies 1 1.9 

Otherc 7 13.0 

Most Successful Types of Outreach to 

Attract New Sponsors/Increase 

Participationa 

Focus on New Sponsors 

Personal contacts 18 33.3 

Outreach to schools 13 24.1 

Mailings (especially to schools) 7 13.0 
TABLE IV.9 (continued) 

130

 Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Presentations at conferences 4 7.4 

Working with advocates, nutrition groups 4 7.4 

Focus on New Participants 

Word-of-mouthd

 6 11.1 

Flyers, posters, banners 4 7.4 

Public service announcements, television, 

radio, newspaper 4 7.4 

Working with existing sponsors to find 

new sites 4 7.4 

More/better activities with meals 2 3.7 

Toll-free number/hotline 2 3.7 

Publicity to community groups 2 3.7 

Bookmarks, Frisbees 2 3.7 

Door-to-door canvassing 1 1.9 

Other 2 3.7 

Don’t Know 1 1.9 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

NOTE: Questions on outreach strategies were open-ended, and state administrators provided varying 

levels of detail in their responses. Thus, tabulations should be interpreted as representing 

lower bounds on the number of state agencies using each strategy. 

a

Multiple responses allowed. 

b

Does not include targeted letters or letters signed by a prominent person, which are listed separately. 

c

Includes billboards, advertisements on buses, and advertisements in movie theatres; outreach to mothers 

at WIC clinics; and outreach to camp programs for low-income children. Some of these approaches may 

be targeted to recruiting participants rather than potential new sponsors. 

d

Word-of-mouth could have been cited in the context of recruiting new sponsors but seemed most often to 

refer to recruiting participants for existing sponsors. 

USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture; WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 

Infants, and Children. 
131

c. Most Successful Outreach Approaches 

State administrators who were asked for their opinion on their most successful outreach 

approaches for attracting new sponsors or increasing participation emphasized one-on-one 

recruitment of sponsors and outreach to schools (Table IV.9).10 One-third believed that personal 

contacts with potential sponsors was their most successful strategy. The emphasis on one-on-one 

recruitment is consistent with the belief that the SFSP is challenging to operate: sponsors must 

therefore be “sold” on participation; according to one state administrator, the key was to 

“identify and work with them and make them understand the program.” In addition, state 

administrators wanted to ensure that new sponsors were aware of the frequent need for additional 

funding sources, on the one hand, and of the help available from the state, on the other. To quote 

another administrator, “You have to find the right person, at the right time, and get them the right 

funding in order to have a successful sponsorship.” Another state agency hired a consultant well 

known in the school food service community to make personal recruitment visits to school 

districts in low-income areas. 

About one-quarter of the state administrators believed that outreach to schools was the most 

successful strategy. This belief reflects the fact that many state agencies see School Food 

Authorities (SFAs) as ideal sponsors because these organizations are accustomed to operating 

child nutrition programs. Because most SFSP state agencies also administer the NSLP, they 

usually can easily obtain the information to determine which school districts that are not 

sponsors are likely to have schools that qualify as eligible SFSP sites. 

No one method for encouraging children’s participation was mentioned frequently as the 

most successful, but a few state administrators each mentioned a few approaches. This pattern 

probably reflects the fact that state agencies focus most of their energies on outreach to sponsors. 

In addition, the most effective outreach method may vary from place to place. Particularly 

interesting approaches included door-to-door canvassing in the community, with door-hangers 

(flyers shaped to fit over doorknobs) left for people who were not home, and placement of 

advertisements for the program on subways and buses. 

2. Sponsors’ Efforts to Increase Participation at Their Sites 

Seventy-one percent of current sponsors reported that they had used one or more strategies 

to increase participation at their sites in 2001 or 2000 (Table IV.10). They used a wide variety of 

outreach activities, including partnering with other community organizations and agencies to 

 10Although asked to identify their most successful outreach activity, the question was openended, and many administrators provided multiple responses. Some mentioned only sponsorfocused activities or only participation-focused activities; others mentioned both types. Some of 

the activities mentioned, such as mailings, may appear here in part because the state agency did 

not conduct any other form of outreach; by definition, then, the cited activity also was the most 

successful. 
132 

TABLE IV.10 

SPONSORS’ STRATEGIES TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION 

Strategiesa 

Percentage of 

All 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Open 

Sponsorsb 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Enrolled 

Sponsorsc 

Standard 

Error 

Flyers, Posters, Signs, 

Outreach to Families 28 (4.8) 35 (6.4) 13 (6.9) 

Advertisements Through 

Newspapers, Radio, 

Television 24 (4.5) 31 (5.9) 8 (4.9) 

Work with Organizations 

Other than Schools 12 (3.1) 14 (3.8) 6 (5.2) 

Unspecified Increased 

Publicity 12 (3.8) 14 (4.6) 8 (7.0) 

Improve the Programd

 9 (3.1) 12 (4.4) 3 (1.9) 

Work with Schools 7 (2.8) 7 (2.4) 9 (7.2) 

Recruit/Open More Sites 5 (2.1) 7 (2.8) 2 (2.4) 

Word of Mouth 6 (2.9) 6 (3.8) 4 (4.0) 

Door-to-Door/Home Visits 4 (1.7) 2 (1.7) 8 (5.7) 

Other 5 (2.1) 6 (2.8) 4 (2.7) 

 

No Strategies Reported 29 (5.1) 14 (4.1) 59 (11.8) 

Sample Size 124 — 95 — 29 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTES: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. 

a

Categories constructed from open-ended responses to a question about what, if anything, the sponsor had done in 

2000 or 2001 to increase program participation. 

b

Sponsors that have only open sites or a combination of open and enrolled sites. 

c

Sponsors that have enrolled, camp, or National Youth Sports Program sites. 

d

Includes such strategies as securing or providing transportation assistance, increasing staff/volunteers, improving 

meal quality, and offering more programs/activities. 
133

promote the program. All sponsors are required to advertise the availability of free meals at their 

sites, but they may not have considered these announcements as efforts to increase participation. 

a. Outreach Activities 

Sponsors used many strategies to increase participation, ranging from flyers, posters, and 

signs targeted to parents and/or children (mentioned by 28 percent); to newspaper, radio, or 

television advertisements (mentioned by 24 percent); to improving the program to make it more 

attractive to their community’s children (mentioned by 9 percent) (Table IV.10). More than 1 in 

10 sponsors also mentioned collaborating with other organizations to increase participation, and 

more than 1 in 10 just generally “increased publicity.” Five percent of sponsors attempted to 

recruit and open additional sites to increase the number of children served. As expected, 

sponsors with open sites reported more efforts to increase program coverage than did sponsors 

with enrolled sites. 

Most former sponsors (81 percent) also attempted to increase participation at their sites 

during the last year they operated the program (Table IV.11). Half the former sponsors that did 

not attempt to bolster participation cited lack of need, and half cited a lack of resources or 

enrollment limits that limited their capacity to expand. 

b. Partner Organizations 

Many sponsors reported collaborating with other organizations to promote and support the 

SFSP (Table IV.12). About half of current sponsors and 62 percent of former sponsors indicated 

that they worked with other organizations. 

About three-quarters of current sponsors and two-thirds of former sponsors that worked with 

partners worked with more than one organization. More than half of current sponsors 

collaborated with community-based organizations, and almost half reported working with 

schools; about 40 percent of former sponsors worked with each group. Other common types of 

partners were media groups (partners to 20 percent of current sponsors and 26 percent of former 

sponsors) and religious organizations (partners to 17 percent of current sponsors and 32 percent 

of former sponsors). A smaller share of sponsors also worked with business organizations, 

antihunger advocacy groups, local governments, parks and recreation departments, local health 

departments, and housing authorities or public housing complexes. 

Sponsors reported that their partner organizations performed a range of functions. The most 

commonly reported functions were informing residents about specific SFSP sites (mentioned by 

88 percent of sponsors and 77 percent of former sponsors), placing advertisements or making 

public service announcements (mentioned by 83 and 82 percent, respectively), and providing 

activities for children at the sites (51 and 55 percent, respectively). Partner organizations 

provided the following types of assistance to at least 20 percent of sponsors: providing flyers, 

posters, promotional materials, or gifts; helping to identify areas in need of sites; providing 

assistance with forms and application requirements; providing staff or volunteers to help at the 

sites; and arranging special media events, such as a kick-off event. 
134 

TABLE IV.11 

FORMER SPONSORS’ EFFORTS TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION 

Percentage of 

Former 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Attempted to Increase Participation at Their Site(s) 

in Their Last Year in Program 81 (4.1) 

Sample Size 130 — 

Reasons for No Attempt to Increase Participation 

No need 48 (12.2) 

Lack of resources (including staff, space) 

 or enrollment limits 49 (12.1) 

Othera

 3 (2.6) 

Sample Size 24 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Former Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of former sponsors nationally. 

a

Includes lack of interest by school, transportation limitations, and having joined program too late. 
135 

TABLE IV.12 

SPONSORS’ WORK WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS 

TO PROMOTE AND SUPPORT THE SFSP 

Percentage of 

Current 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Former 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

All Current and Former Sponsors 

Percentage that Worked with 

Other Organizations 48 (6.0) 62 (5.1) 

Sample Size 126 — 131 — 

Current and Former Sponsors that 

Worked with Other Organizations 

Number of Other Organizations Worked with 

1 23 (5.6) 36 (6.8) 

2 32 (6.7) 35 (6.2) 

3 to 4 36 (7.3) 29 (7.1) 

>5 10 (3.7) 1 (0.5) 

Mean 2.5 (0.4) 2.0 (0.1) 

Percentage that Worked with: 

Community-based organization 61 (6.7) 38 (6.4) 

Schools or department of education 50 (7.3) 39 (6.6) 

Media 20 (5.8) 26 (6.1) 

Religious organization 17 (5.0) 32 (6.8) 

Business organization — — 9 (5.9) 

Nutrition or antihunger advocacy group 6 (2.9) 4 (2.9) 

Other organizationsa

 44 (6.9) 29 (6.6) 

Percentage Reporting that Partner Organizations: 

Informed residents about specific SFSP sitesb

 88 (5.1) 77 (6.9) 

Placed advertisements or made public service 

announcementsc

 83 (5.3) 82 (5.2) 

Provided activities for children at sitesc

 51 (7.5) 55 (7.1) 

Provided flyers, posters, promotional materials, or giftsc

 36 (6.7) 22 (5.7) 

Helped to identify areas in need of sitesb

 35 (6.1) 31 (6.0) 

Provided assistance with forms and application 

requirementsc

 25 (5.8) 17 (4.8) 

Provided volunteer staff to help at the sitesc

 25 (6.0) 41 (6.8) 

Provided special media events, such as a kick-offc

 24 (5.9) 18 (5.1) 

Provided additional fundsc

 14 (5.3) 13 (4.5) 

Provided assistance in finding food service vendorsc

 7 (3.6) 10 (3.4) 

Provided other supportc,d 9 (4.1) 0 (0.0) 

Sample Size 71 — 79 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor and Former Sponsor Surveys (2001). 
TABLE IV.12 (continued)

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

136 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors and former sponsors nationally. 

a

Includes other government or government agency, housing authority, public housing complex, recreation or parks 

department, job corps program, and national organizations (nonhunger). 

b

n = 69. 

c

n = 70. 

d

Includes food preparation, staffing, transportation, and providing the site or facilities. 
137

3. Sites’ Efforts to Increase Participation 

Most site supervisors (85 percent) believed that publicity about their site was adequate 

(Table IV.13). Most often, sponsors are responsible for site publicity, although site staff also 

may be involved. Site supervisors reported that their sponsors had collaborated with schools 

(mentioned by 80 percent of supervisors); placed flyers, posters, and signs (mentioned by 

75 percent); produced radio or television “spots” or newspaper advertisements (61 percent); and 

worked with other organizations (60 percent). Many supervisors at enrolled sites or camp sites 

also mentioned special events held to promote the program (mentioned by 36 percent of 

supervisors of enrolled sites, compared with 13 percent of supervisors of open sites). 

C. NEW SPONSORS 

When state agencies provided lists of sponsors for the Sponsor-Site Database, they indicated 

which sponsors were new in the sense that the sponsors had participated in the program in 2001 

but not in 2000. Out of 4,372 sponsors on the combined lists, 440 were marked as new 

(10 percent). Examining the characteristics of new sponsors relative to continuing sponsors 

gives an indication of the types of sponsors that have recently been recruited through the types of 

outreach efforts described in the previous section. One caveat to keep in mind is that some of the 

sponsors counted as new in our definition may have been SFSP sponsors before 2000. 

As with other sponsors, about half of all new sponsors were SFAs (Table IV.14). About 

one-third of new sponsors were nonprofit organizations, whereas just under one-sixth of 

continuing sponsors were nonprofits. By contrast, government and camp sponsors were less 

common among new sponsors than among continuing sponsors. These trends may indicate the 

effects of recent moves to reduce SFSP regulatory requirements for school and nonprofit 

sponsors discussed in Chapter I. 

New sponsors were less likely than continuing sponsors to offer both breakfast and supper. 

This difference largely may reflect the smaller proportion of new sponsors that were camps. 

New sponsors also tended to be smaller than continuing sponsors. They operated an average of 

three sites, and 61 percent operated only one site. By contrast, continuing sponsors operated an 

average of nine sites, and 48 percent operated only one site. New sponsors also served fewer 

total meals; about 80 percent served 10,000 meals or fewer, compared with 57 percent of 

continuing sponsors. The average duration of new sponsors’ programs was slightly shorter than 

that of continuing sponsors; in particular, new sponsors’ programs were more likely to operate 

for fewer than 4 weeks (20 percent of new sponsors versus 13 percent of continuing sponsors). 

New sponsors may run small programs because they are small organizations with limited 

capacity to administer many sites or because they want to acquire some experience with only 

modest financial risk by trying out the SFSP on a small scale initially. Given the data available, 

it is not possible to determine which explanation is the more likely; however, it seems plausible 

that both factors are at work. As discussed in Chapter III, state agencies recognized that new 

sponsors need special attention; most state agencies provided new sponsors with more-extensive 

training than that given to continuing sponsors, and they were aware that these sponsors had 

more difficulty with some issues. The next section discusses the states’ effectiveness in retaining 

sponsors, and why some sponsors leave the SFSP. 
138

TABLE IV.13 

SITE SUPERVISORS’ VIEWS ON PUBLICITY EFFORTS 

 Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Open Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Enrolled Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Site Supervisors Believed 

Publicity Was Adequate 85 (3.6) 87 (3.5) 74 (11.3) 

Publicity Efforts Currently Used 

to Promote Sitea 

 

Working with schools 80 (5.0) 82 (5.3) 73 (11.8) 

Flyers, posters, signs 75 (4.3) 79 (4.9) 51 (11.4) 

Radio or television “spots,”

newspaper advertisements 61 (5.3) 62 (5.9) 55 (11.9) 

Working with other 

organizations 60 (4.6) 62 (4.7) 55 (10.5) 

Special eventsb

 17 (3.8) 13 (4.0) 36 (10.5) 

Word-of-mouthb

 9 (2.5) 8 (2.7) 11 (5.9) 

Letters, telephone calls to 

parents and childrenb 3 (1.7) 2 (1.0) 12 (7.9) 

Otherb,c 4 (2.3) 4 (2.7) 1 (1.2) 

Sample Size 161 — 120 — 41 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Interview (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sites nationally. Enrolled sites include camp and National 

Youth Sports Program sites. 

a

Because of missing data, sample sizes for specific items range from 147 to 161. Multiple responses allowed; will not sum 

to 100 percent. 

b

Response was volunteered. 

c

Includes outreach via the Internet, bilingual publicity, offering more activities, incentives for children, and door-to-door 

canvassing. 
139 

TABLE IV.14 

COMPARISON OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS 

OF NEW AND CONTINUING SPONSORS 

Percentage of 

New Sponsors 

Percentage of 

Continuing Sponsors 

Type of Sponsor 

Government 8.6 14.8 

School 47.7 48.5 

Camp/Upward Bound 8.2 17.3 

NYSP 2.5 3.6 

Nonprofit organization 32.5 15.8 

Missing 0.5 0.0 

Meals Offered 

Breakfast 61.4 73.2 

Lunch 96.8 98.4 

Supper 11.6 21.6 

Any snack 16.4 15.1 

Number of Sites Sponsored 

1 60.5 48.4 

2 to 5 29.8 26.8 

6 to 10 4.3 9.6 

11 to 50 5.2 12.3 

51 to 100 0.2 1.6 

>100 0.0 1.3 

Median 1.0 2.0 

Mean 2.9 8.7 

Total Meals Served 

<1,000 12.7 4.8 

1,000 to 10,000 67.1 52.1 

10,001 to 20,000 11.6 18.0 

20,001 to 100,000 7.1 19.7 

≥100,001 0.9 4.9 

Missing 0.7 0.6 

Median 3,780 8,035 

Mean 8,718 32,412 
TABLE IV.14 (continued)

140 

Percentage of 

New Sponsors 

Percentage of 

Continuing Sponsors 

Program Duration (Calendar 

Weeks) 

<4 20.2 12.5 

4 to <8 43.0 51.8 

8 to <12 28.2 29.7 

≥12 3.6 3.3 

Missing 5.0 2.7 

Median 6.7 6.9 

Mean 7.1 7.6 

Total 440 3,932 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

NYSP = National Youth Sports Program. 
141

D. SPONSORS THAT LEAVE THE PROGRAM 

Based on the sample frame compiled for the survey of former sponsors and the ineligibility 

rates found in the survey, an estimated 330 sponsors (about 8 percent of year 2000 sponsors) left 

the SFSP between 2000 and 2001. This section describes the actions state agencies take to retain 

sponsors, the differences between the characteristics of former sponsors and current sponsors, 

and the reasons why sponsors left the program. 

1. State Agencies’ Strategies to Promote Sponsor Retention 

If the SFSP is to grow, it is important not just to recruit new sponsors but to keep existing 

sponsors in the program. To gain insight into how state agencies address this issue, state 

administrators were asked an open-ended question on what their agency was doing to retain 

sponsors. Although a few administrators noted they did not have the resources to focus on 

sponsor retention, the rest mentioned one or more strategies. 

State administrators most frequently emphasized that their role as providers of technical 

assistance was key to retaining sponsors (Table IV.15). Nearly 40 percent emphasized the 

amount of assistance available, noting that they would provide one-on-one assistance to sponsors 

who needed it or were ready to provide assistance on a wide range of topics, and about 

35 percent reported that their agency tried to provide high-quality customer service, with an 

emphasis on a warm, supportive relationship.11

About one-quarter of the state agencies recognized sponsors’ efforts by giving out awards, 

hosting special dinners, hosting conferences, or using some combination of these approaches. 

FNS gives “Summer Sunshine” awards to outstanding sponsors, and some states have 

encouraged participation in this program or have their own system for providing recognition. 

The awards sometimes are given out at a conference or a dinner at which sponsors can share 

their experiences and ideas for improving the program. At these meetings, which generally are 

held at the end of the summer, some state agencies obtain feedback about sponsors’ concerns or 

ways to improve their services. One state administrator mentioned that each sponsor was given 

an individualized report card recognizing its program’s strengths and offering suggestions on 

how to improve. 

About 10 to 20 percent of state administrators each reported that their agencies (1) provided 

ongoing encouragement and reminders about why the program is important, (2) attempted to 

reduce the paperwork burden, (3) strove to communicate effectively with sponsors, 

(4) conducted outreach, and (5) improved training and technical assistance in response to 

sponsors’ feedback. Five state administrators also mentioned following up with sponsors that 

left the program to understand what had gone wrong. 

 11Many agencies emphasized both the quantity and quality of technical assistance available; 

61 percent of agencies mentioned one or both of these responses. 
142 

TABLE IV.15 

STATE AGENCIES’ EFFORTS TO RETAIN SPONSORS 

Strategies

Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Provide Technical Assistance, Including 

Individualized Helpa 21 38.9 

Provide Good Customer Servicea 19 35.2 

Motivate Sponsors with Conferences, Lunches, 

Awards Workshops 14 25.9 

Attempt to Reduce/Simplify Paperwork, 

Including Application 9 16.7 

Conduct Outreach (to the Community and 

Sponsors) 8 14.8 

Provide Good Training/Improve Training 8 14.8 

Encourage Sponsors/Remind Sponsors of 

Program’s Good Points 7 13.0 

Maintain Good Communication with Sponsors 7 13.0 

Follow Up with Sponsors that Leave 5 9.3 

Be Flexible About Application Deadlines 2 3.7 

Have Sponsors Partner with Other Sponsor 

Organizations 2 3.7 

Work with Special Sponsor Group and Related 

Professional Groups 2 3.7 

Try to Make Monitoring Positive 1 1.9 

Work Efficiently so Sponsors Are Reimbursed 

Quickly 1 1.9 

Other 5 9.3 

Nothing 2 3.7 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

NOTE: Responses to open-ended question. Multiple responses allowed. 

a

Sixty-one percent of state administrators had responses in one or both of these categories. 
143

Some strategies mentioned by only one or two state administrators may be of interest. For 

example, two state agencies helped new sponsors learn by partnering them with 

more-experienced sponsors. One state administrator reported that the agency worked hard to 

make monitoring a positive experience for sponsors, with the emphasis on educating the 

sponsors about the program. Others mentioned flexibility with application deadlines as a 

useful strategy. 

2. Characteristics of Former Sponsors and Current Sponsors 

Despite the state agencies’ efforts, some sponsors leave the SFSP each year. Understanding 

how former sponsors and current sponsors differ may help state and national officials to enrich 

retention strategies and provide more-targeted technical assistance. Sponsors that left the 

program between 2000 and 2001 were disproportionately nonprofit organizations (48 percent of 

former sponsors, but only 18 percent of current sponsors were nonprofit organizations), 

indicating that nonprofit organizations were more likely than schools, governments, or camps to 

leave (Table IV.16). However, one-third of former sponsors were schools; 13 percent were 

government sponsors; and 6 percent were camp, Upward Bound, or NYSP sponsors. 

More than one-quarter (28 percent) of former sponsors left the program after operating for 

only 1 year. By comparison, new sponsors accounted for about 10 percent of the total sponsor 

population (see Section C), which suggests that new sponsors are at a relatively high risk of 

leaving the program. However, about one-third of former sponsors had been in the program for 

6 years or longer. 

Smaller sponsors were more likely than large sponsors to leave the program between 2000 

and 2001. About half of both current and former sponsors operated a single site (59 percent of 

former sponsors and 50 percent of current sponsors), but relatively few former sponsors operated 

more than 10 sites (5 percent of former sponsors, compared with 14 percent of current sponsors). 

In addition, former sponsors had substantially lower average daily attendance relative to current 

sponsors (217 and 626 children, respectively); however, this difference was largely a function of 

the number of sites sponsored, as each group had a similar ratio of average daily attendance to 

average number of sites operated. 

Former sponsors were more likely than current sponsors to have operated only open sites 

(74 percent versus 55 percent) or only enrolled sites (17 percent versus 11 percent). However, 

current sponsors were more likely to offer both open and enrolled sites (13 percent of current 

sponsors did so, versus 4 percent of former sponsors)—a reflection of their generally larger size. 

Former sponsors were as likely as current sponsors to operate rural sites; sponsors with at 

least one rural site accounted for slightly more than half of both groups. In addition, similar 

proportions of both groups reported feeding migrant children. However, former sponsors 

disproportionately reported operating mobile sites (11 percent, compared with 3 percent of 

current sponsors). Operating mobile sites may pose unique challenges that increase the 

likelihood of a sponsor’s leaving the program, but more information would be needed to confirm 

this explanation. 
144 

TABLE IV.16 

COMPARISON OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS 

OF FORMER SPONSORS AND CURRENT SPONSORS 

 Percentage of 

Former 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Current 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Type of Sponsora 

 

Government 13 (4.1) 14 — 

School 33 (4.8) 48 — 

Camp/Upward Bound 5 (2.6) 16 — 

NYSP 1 (0.7) 4 — 

Nonprofit organization 48 (5.3) 18 — 

Number of Years as Sponsor 

 

First year (new this year) 28 (5.1) 2b (1.0) 

2 to 5 38 (5.1) 41 (5.6) 

p6 34 (5.1) 57 (5.6) 

Unknown (but >1) 0 — 0 (0.4) 

Number of Sites Sponsoreda 

 

1 59 (4.9) 50 —

2 to 5 30 (4.6) 27 —

6 to 10 6 (1.6) 9 —

11 to 50 5 (1.4) 12 —

51 to 100 0 (0.0) 2 —

101 to 200 >0 (0.3) 1 —

201 to 300 0 (0.0) 0 —

>300 0 (0.0) 0 —

Median 1.0 —c

 2.0 —

Mean 3.5 (0.6) 8.1 —

Average Daily Attendance 

 

<100 60 (4.8) 32 (5.7) 

100 to 500 33 (4.5) 53 (5.7) 

501 to 1,000 3 (1.0) 7 (1.6) 

1,001 to 5,000 3 (1.1) 7 (1.4) 

>5,000 1 (0.4) 2 (0.5) 

Median 72 (9) 145 (23) 

Mean 217 (40) 626 (1,235) 

Types of Sites 

 

All open 74 (4.5) 55 (5.2) 

All enrolled 17 (3.9) 11 (3.9) 

Combination of open and enrolled 3 (1.2) 13 (2.8) 

Camp or Upward Bound sites 5 (2.6) 19 (5.0) 

NYSP sites 1 (0.7) 2 (1.2) 
TABLE IV.16 (continued)

145

 Percentage of 

Former 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Current 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Location 

 

Any rural sites 57 (5.4) 56 (5.6) 

Any migrant sites 7 (2.8) 9 (2.6) 

Any mobile sites 11 (3.2) 3 (1.4) 

Meals Offereda 

 

Breakfast 57 (5.0) 72 —

Lunch 95 (3.0) 98 —

Supper 18 (4.0) 21 —

Any snack 29 (4.8) 15 —

Type of Meal Preparation

 

Self-preparation on site 46 (5.3) 63 (4.8) 

Self-preparation at central kitchen 24 (4.0) 14 (3.1) 

Self-preparation on site or at central kitchen — — 5 (1.7) 

SFA as vendor 17 (4.0) 6 (1.9) 

Private vendor 13 (3.5) 13 (3.8) 

Sample Size—Surveys 131 — 126 —

Total—Sponsor-Site Database 4,372 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Former Sponsor and Sponsor Surveys, and the Sponsor-Site Database 

(2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of former sponsors and sponsors nationally. Sponsor data 

are from the survey, except where noted. 

a

These sponsor data are from the Sponsor-Site Database, which is a census, so they have no standard errors. 

b

As discussed in Chapter II, the Sponsor-Site Database indicated that 10 percent of sponsors were new, but the 

survey found a smaller proportion. 

c

Standard error of median cannot be computed due to the skewness of the data. 

NYSP = National Youth Sports Program; SFA = School Food Authority. 
146

Former sponsors were less likely than current sponsors to serve breakfast but were more 

likely to serve snacks. These differences probably are related to the fact that former sponsors 

were less likely than current sponsors to be schools or camps and were more likely to be 

nonprofit organizations. Moreover, fewer former sponsors than current sponsors prepared meals 

themselves; they were more likely than current sponsors to employ SFAs to provide vended 

meals. Again, this difference probably reflects the relatively large proportion of former sponsors 

that were nonprofit organizations. 

This study examined sponsors that left the SFSP in only one year, 2001. However, a 

previous study of sponsors that left in 1996 and 1997 also found that sponsors that left were 

more likely to be small sponsors and nonprofit organizations (U.S. General Accounting 

Office 1998). 

3. Reasons Why Former Sponsors Left the Program 

This section describes the perspectives of state administrators and of former sponsors on 

why sponsors leave the SFSP. 

a. Perspectives of State Administrators 

State administrators reported that, averaged across states, about 10 percent of sponsors left 

the SFSP between 2000 and 2001 (Table IV.17).12 On average, seven sponsors per state did not 

return to the SFSP. Five state administrators indicated that no sponsors left during that period. 

Only three states lost more than 20 percent of their sponsors; these states were ones with 

relatively few sponsors, however, so a loss from the program of even one sponsor represented a 

large percentage of the state’s sponsors. 

According to the state administrators’ reports, nearly all sponsors that left the program did 

so voluntarily and stopped participating completely. Although a few sponsors (fewer than 1 out 

of 10, on average) became sites themselves, thus operating for another sponsor, more than threequarters of the state administrators did not report any sponsors making such a change. 

Only a very small number of sponsors were asked by the state agency to leave. State 

administrators from only 11 states reported that any 2000 sponsors were asked not to reapply or 

were not approved for 2001; in general, there was only one “problem sponsor” per state. On 

average, fewer than one-half of 1 percent of a state’s sponsors were dropped by the state (about 

4 percent of sponsors that left). Five of the 11 state agencies that dropped at least 1 sponsor cited 

the result of administrative reviews of the sponsor, which found the sponsor to be seriously 

deficient. Other reasons cited by more than one state administrator included the failure of 

 12This average does not adjust for the different sizes of state programs. However, it is 

similar to the nationwide average of 8 percent (reported in the beginning of Section D). 
147 

TABLE IV.17 

STATE ADMINISTRATORS’ VIEWS ON WHY 

SPONSORS LEFT THE PROGRAM 

Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Number of Sponsors that Left Between 

2000 and 2001 

 

0 5 9.3 

1 to 2 10 18.5 

3 to 5 10 18.5 

6 to 10 17 31.5 

11 to 20 11 20.4 

 1 20.4 

Mean 7.3 1.8 

Median 6.5 —

Range 0-31 —

Percentage of Sponsors that Left 

 

0 5 9.3 

>0 to 5 8 14.8 

>5 to 10 19 35.2 

>10 to 15 14 25.9 

>15 to 20 5 9.3 

>20 3 5.6 

Mean 9.7 —

Median 9.5 —

Range 0-22 —

Percentage of Sponsors in 2000 that Left 

by Choiceb 

 

0 5 9.3 

1 to 10 31 57.4 

11 to 20 16 29.6 

21 to 30 2 3.6 

Mean 8.7 —

Median 9.0 —

Range 0-22 —
TABLE IV.17 (continued) 

148

Number of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of 

State Agencies 

Percentage of Sponsors in 2000 that 

Changed from Being a Sponsor to Being 

a Siteb 

 

0 43 79.6 

1 to 10 10 18.5 

11 to 20 1 1.8 

Mean 0.6 —

Median 0 —

Range 0-11 —

Percentage of Sponsors in 2000 that Were 

Not Approved or Were Asked Not to 

Reapplyb 

 

0 43 79.6 

1 to 5 10 18.5 

6 to 10 1 1.8 

Mean 0.35 —

Median 0.0 —

Range 0-6 —

Reasons Not Approved or Asked Not to 

Reapply (n = 11)a

 

Seriously deficient in reviews in previous 

year 5 45.4 

Did not meet eligibility requirements 3 27.3 

Missed application deadline 2 18.2 

Poor performance/management 2 18.2 

Did not pass health inspection 1 9.1 

Owed excess advance funds 1 9.1 

Program experienced loss of its other 

funding for 2001 1 9.1 

Total 54 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, State Administrator Census (2001). 

a

Multiple answers allowed. 

b

The five states that did not lose any sponsors in 2001 are included in the 0-percent category for 

this question. 
149

sponsors to meet eligibility requirements, missed application deadlines, and poor performance or 

management of the program. 

b. Perspectives of Former Sponsors 

About 13 percent of former sponsors indicated that they had been dropped by the state 

(4 percent) or were no longer eligible (9 percent) (Table IV.18). The percentage who mentioned 

being dropped by the state is consistent with state reports. Former sponsors cited the following 

reasons for their program being dropped by the state: failure to meet deadlines, problems with 

meal counts or claiming procedures, noncompliance with monitoring, and existence of 

competing sites. These explanations were similar to the ones provided by state administrators. 

Sponsors dropped between 2000 and 2001 were a diverse group, including schools, nonprofit 

organizations, and Upward Bound programs. 

Reasons for Leaving the Program. Former sponsors’ reasons for leaving the program 

varied extensively. Most sponsors provided multiple explanations for leaving; on average, about 

three reasons were provided. 

Nearly half (47 percent) of all former sponsors mentioned funding issues—usually that 

reimbursement rates were too low to warrant continued participation, or that it was less 

expensive to operate a feeding program outside the SFSP. Others mentioned internal funding 

problems. More former sponsors (20 percent) cited the reimbursement rate structure as their 

main reason for leaving than any other reason. 

About two-fifths (44 percent) of the former sponsors attributed their exit from SFSP partly 

to the paperwork involved. In particular, former sponsors reported that the required paperwork 

and daily accounting were too difficult or too time-consuming (40 percent), or that the 

application process was too difficult or too time-consuming (25 percent). Paperwork was the 

third most commonly cited main reason for leaving. 

Participation issues were the third most commonly cited reason for leaving (and lack of 

participation was the second most common main reason); 40 percent of former sponsors cited 

participation issues. More than one-quarter indicated that their sites’ participation levels were 

too low. One-fifth of former sponsors indicated that their target area had too few income-eligible 

children for the program to be worthwhile or cost-effective. A small number (5 percent) 

believed that other feeding programs in their area precluded their continued participation. Lack 

of participation may be an indicator of insufficient need for the program, or it may indicate that 

the former sponsor was not successful in conducting outreach or addressing other barriers that 

prevent interested families from participating. 

Fourteen percent of former sponsors acknowledged difficulty with program regulations and 

policies. (This fraction does not include the 9 percent of sponsors that were no longer eligible, or 

the 4 percent dropped by the state.) About 9 percent indicated that they had problems with meal 

count procedures, or that too many of their meals had been disqualified. Some also mentioned 

difficulties in adequately separating the administration of various food programs or adhering to 

health care and sanitation regulations. 
150 

TABLE IV.18 

REASONS FORMER SPONSORS CITED FOR LEAVING THE PROGRAM 

Reason Cited 

Percentage 

Citing 

Reason 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Citing 

as Main 

Reason 

Standard 

Error 

Dropped by Statea 4 (2.0) 2 (0.9) 

No Longer Eligible (n = 130) 9 (2.6) 5 (7.0) 

Funding Issues 47 (5.2) 

Inadequate reimbursement rates or cheaper to run 

program outside of SFSP 45 (5.2) 20 (4.3) 

Not enough internal funding/financial problems 5 (1.9) 4 (1.7) 

Paperwork 44 (5.3) 

Paperwork too difficult or too time-consuming 40 (5.2) 11 (3.0) 

Application process too difficult or too 

time-consuming 25 (4.6) 1 (0.5) 

Participation Issues 40 (5.1) 

Lack of participation 28 (5.1) 13 (4.6) 

Not enough eligible children to be worthwhile 20 (4.1) 8 (3.1) 

Competing programs, other local alternatives 5 (2.5) 5 (2.4) 

Difficulty with Program Regulations or Policies 14 (3.2) 

Meals disqualified/problems with meal counts 9 (2.5) 4 (1.7) 

Difficulty separating various food programs 5 (1.9) — — 

Health and sanitation requirements 3 (1.6) — — 

Other Administrative Issues 13 (3.1) 

Insufficient staff 13 (3.1) 4 (1.8) 

Other administrative or operational issuesb

 9 (2.2) 5 (1.7) 

State-Related Issues 13 (3.4) 

Inadequate technical assistance or training 11 (3.2) 2 (1.4) 

Poor relationship with state office 6 (1.9) 3 (1.4) 

Change in Sponsor or Site Designation 12 (3.5) 

Prefer to feed children through NSLP/other program 10 (2.7) 4 (1.8) 

Sponsor became a site 8 (2.9) 1 (0.9) 

Site, vendor, or school district became sponsor 4 (2.0) 4 (1.9) 

Site Issues 9 (2.8) 

Construction or remodeling of site facility 6 (2.5) 6 (2.6) 

Summer school or program calendar changes 4 (2.0) 2 (0.9) 

Otherc 3 (1.8) — — 

Sample Size 131 — 128 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Former Sponsor Survey (2001). 
TABLE IV.18 (continued)

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

151

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of former sponsors nationally. Multiple responses allowed 

in column 1; will not sum to 100 percent. 

a

Reasons include failure to meet deadlines, problems with meal counts/claiming procedures, noncompliance with 

monitoring, and competing sites. 

b

Frequently mentioned responses include program manager having left, organization dissolved, problems with 

deadlines, vendors, poor relationships with other organizations, and internal or personal problems with organization 

or staff. 

c

Frequently mentioned responses include difficulty with security, children, and food quality or selection. 

NSLP = National School Lunch Program. 
152

Some former sponsors (13 percent) reported that they left for administrative reasons, most 

often because they had insufficient staff to operate the SFSP. Thirteen percent of former 

sponsors attributed their exit at least in part to issues with their state program administrators. 

Eleven percent stated that their training or technical assistance was insufficient, and 6 percent 

expressed dissatisfaction with their relationship with the state office. 

Slightly more than 12 percent of former sponsors reported changes in status as the reason for 

leaving. One-tenth switched to feeding children through the NSLP or another non-SFSP feeding 

program. Eight percent became sites, preferring the daily feeding operations to the sponsor-level 

paperwork and program coordination. An additional 4 percent reported that a site or school 

district in their area had assumed sponsorship for the program. 

Nine percent of sponsors dropped out of the program, perhaps temporarily, at least in part 

because of site or facility issues. For example, 6 percent of former sponsors reported that their 

departure was due to site construction or facility remodeling. Most of these sponsors indicated 

an intention to return to the program after construction was completed. Changes to the summer 

school or other program calendar adversely affected program viability for some sponsors 

(4 percent); cancellation of summer school or other activities may have forced them to close the 

feeding program. 

Changes to Encourage Former Sponsors to Return to the Program. About 4 percent of 

former sponsors reported no desire whatsoever to serve as an SFSP sponsor in the future; 

3 percent indicated they would definitely reapply regardless of changes made or not made to the 

program (Table IV.19). The remaining 92 percent would consider becoming a sponsor again if 

specific program changes were instituted. Almost one-third of this group believed that 

reimbursement rates should be raised to make the program more attractive. Nineteen percent 

reported that they would return if demand increased, and 26 percent indicated that operational 

changes or a reduction in the program’s administrative burden would encourage them to return. 

For example, some former sponsors mentioned reduced paperwork, streamlined reporting, 

electronic filing of forms, or more realistic deadlines as administrative changes that could result 

in their return to the SFSP. 

Some sponsors suggested changes to program regulations and policies that might facilitate 

their return. Sixteen percent suggested that meal service requirements be reduced. In particular, 

the sponsors were interested in more-flexible meal pattern requirements, reimbursements for 

meals that were prepared but not served, or permission for participants to take meals off site. A 

small fraction of sponsors mentioned the need for easing income restrictions on participants or 

creating a “severe needs” classification to increase the cost-effectiveness of the program.13

 13Congress authorized higher federal payments for schools determined to be in “severe 

need” in order to encourage schools in especially needy areas to participate in the School 

Breakfast Program. Schools may qualify for higher severe need reimbursements if a specified 

percentage of their NSLP meals are served free or at a reduced price. 
153 

TABLE IV.19 

CHANGES THAT COULD INDUCE FORMER SPONSORS 

TO RETURN TO THE PROGRAM 

Percentage of 

Former Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Interest in Returning to the Program 

No Interest or Wants to Be a Site Only 4 (1.7) 

Interested or Plans to Reapply; No Program Changes Necessary 3 (1.6) 

Would Consider Returning if One or More Changes Made 92 (2.3) 

Sample Size 118 — 

Changes that Could Induce Returna,b

Higher Reimbursement Rates 32 (5.3) 

Increased Participation/Need or Closing of an Alternative Program 19 (4.4) 

Administrative or Operational Changes 26 (5.2) 

Less paperwork, streamlined reporting, or easier deadlines 20 (4.9) 

Additional staff 5 (2.3) 

Other administrative or operational issuesc 1 (0.8) 

Changes to Program Regulations or Policies 20 (4.4) 

Ease meal count restrictions, reimburse for food prepared but not served, 

allow meals off site, increase meal flexibility 16 (4.2) 

Ease income restrictions or allow severe-needs classification 4 (1.7) 

 

Improved Technical Assistance, Training, Responsiveness of State 9 (3.5) 

Site or Facility Issues 24 (5.6) 

Improved or additional transportation for children 9 (5.0) 

Add or reschedule summer school or other activities 8 (2.5) 

Completed construction or remodeling of site facility 5 (2.6) 

Other site or facility issuesd

 5 (1.9) 

 

Other (unspecified) 1 (0.5) 

Sample Size 106 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Former Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Multiple responses allowed; will not sum to 100 percent. Tabulations are weighted to be representative 

of former sponsors nationally. 

a

Asked of former sponsors who reported they would consider returning to the program if one or more changes were 

made. 
TABLE IV.19 (continued)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

154 

b

Categories constructed in response to an open-ended question about what would have to happen or what would 

have to be changed for the organization to again become a sponsor. 

c

Includes attaining nonprofit organization status and making internal organizational improvements. 

d

Includes obtaining a central kitchen, obtaining refrigerated trucks, improving vended food, improving security, and 

being able to maintain longer operating hours. 
155

Nine percent of former sponsors suggested changes in state-sponsor interactions. They 

reported that they would consider returning to the program if the state agency improved its 

technical assistance, enhanced training, or improved responsiveness. 

About one-quarter (24 percent) of sponsors indicated that local changes to their facility or 

site would have to be made before they would consider serving as sponsors again. Concurrent 

with perceptions of state, sponsor, and site staff, availability of transportation was cited as 

critical to resumed sponsorship for 9 percent of former sponsors. Other site-related issues, such 

as reintroducing or rescheduling summer school (8 percent), completing construction or 

remodeling (5 percent), and acquiring a central kitchen (an example of “other site or facility 

issues” cited by 5 percent), are largely out of the hands of national and state program 

administrators. Annual attrition for these reasons is probably unavoidable. 

Status of Sites Run by Former Sponsors. The majority of sites operated by former 

sponsors were not picked up by another sponsor in 2001 (Table IV.20). This finding illustrates 

the importance of sponsor retention. Overall, 70 percent of former sponsors reported that none 

of their sites had been assumed by another sponsor, and an additional 7 percent indicated that 

only some of their sites had been picked up. Single-site former sponsors and rural sponsors were 

particularly likely to report that no other sponsor picked up their sites. Sites operated by 

nonprofit organizations were most likely to have coverage within 1 year after their exit; fully 

41 percent of these sponsors had some or all of their sites picked up. 
TABLE IV.20 

FORMER SPONSOR SITES PICKED UP BY ANOTHER SPONSOR 

Share Picked Up 

Percentage of 

All Former 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Single-Site 

Former Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Rural Former 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Nonprofit 

Former Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

All 22 (4.2) 14 (5.5) 15 (4.0) 34 (7.2) Some 7 (2.1) n.a. — 10 (3.4) 7 (2.9) None 70 (4.6) 86 (5.5) 76 (5.1) 59 (7.4) Sample Size 129 — 57 — 72 — 59 — SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Former Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of former sponsors nationally. 

n.a. = not applicable. 

156 
157

V. MEAL SERVICE 

Several factors affect how well the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) meets its primary 

goal of providing nutritious meals to children in low-income areas during the summer. Among 

these factors are whether sponsors follow meal pattern requirements, the types of foods they 

serve to meet these requirements, the settings in which meals are served, whether children like or 

dislike the foods, and the amount of food wasted. The on-site observations of SFSP meal service 

were designed to examine two research issues: (1) the quality, safety, and food and nutrient 

content of SFSP meals; and (2) the extent of plate waste. 

The meal service findings usually are presented for all sponsor types combined. However, 

selected meal service characteristics and the SFSP meals’ food and nutrient content also are 

presented separately for school sponsors and for nonschool sponsors, as different menu planning 

regulations apply for school sponsors (sponsors that are school food authorities [SFAs]). School 

sponsors may use offer-versus-serve (OVS)—a system used in school meal programs that 

permits children to refuse some meal components—in the SFSP. They also may choose to use 

either the SFSP meal pattern or the menu planning system they use for the school meal 

programs. Other types of sponsors must use the SFSP meal pattern and may not use OVS. 

The key findings are: 

• Most sites served meals indoors and distributed from a serving or pick-up line. 

Three-fourths of the sites (76 percent) served meals indoors; the rest served meals at 

outdoor locations, such as parks and playgrounds. More than 80 percent of sites had 

access to refrigeration.

• A range of foods was observed across sites in SFSP meals, with more different 

menus observed at lunch than at breakfast. SFSP breakfasts typically consisted of 

milk, cereal, and 100-percent fruit juice; some breakfasts included a hot main entree, 

such as scrambled eggs or a breakfast sandwich. A typical SFSP lunch contained 

milk, a sandwich or mixed dish, and a fruit and/or a vegetable. Fifty-four percent of 

lunches provided a cold main entree, 43 percent provided a hot entree, and 3 percent 

offered both options. 

• On average, SFSP meals provided at least one-quarter of the Recommended 

Dietary Allowances (RDAs) for most key nutrients at breakfast, and at least onethird of the RDAs for energy and key nutrients at lunch and supper.1,2 Breakfasts 

 1

The school meal regulations are based on the 1989 RDAs and the 1990 Dietary Guidelines 

(7CFR 210.10 and 7CFR 220.8). This study used the updated Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) 

RDAs for iron and vitamins A and C and the DRI Adequate Intake (AI) for calcium (Institute of 

Medicine 1997, 2001, and 2000b). 

2

Energy refers to food energy, a macronutrient, which is measured in calories (abbreviated 

kcal, as the technical term is kilocalories). 
158

fell slightly below the standard for energy, providing an average of 21 percent of the 

RDA. Suppers fell below the standard for calcium for the older age group, providing 

an average of 27 percent of the Adequate Intake (AI). 

• On average, SFSP meals did not meet nutrition standards for the percentage of 

calories from total fat or from saturated fat, except for total fat at breakfast. 

Neither lunch nor supper met the standards for sodium or for the percentage of energy 

from carbohydrate. The fat and saturated fat contents of SFSP meals were similar to 

those reported for school breakfasts and school lunches in 1998-1999 in the second 

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II) (Fox et al. 2001). 

• About half (55 percent) of breakfasts served by nonschool sponsors met all the 

SFSP meal pattern requirements, and 71 percent of lunches served by nonschool 

sponsors met all the requirements. The most frequent cause of noncompliance was 

inadequate portion sizes. About 22 percent of breakfasts served by nonschool 

sponsors included a fruit or a vegetable, but not in the required serving size. 

Breakfasts sometimes did not contain all the components: 14 percent of breakfasts 

were missing a bread/bread alternate, 6 percent were missing milk, and 5 percent 

were missing the fruit/vegetable component. At lunch, meals that fell short typically 

served all the components but did not meet the minimum serving size for some of 

them. For example, the meat/meat alternate was nearly always served, but 20 percent 

of lunches did not serve it in the required serving size. 

• A substantial majority of sites (80 percent) served more than 90 percent of their 

available meals. When sites had leftover meals, they discarded all meals at 

29 percent of sites; stored all meals at 22 percent of sites; and discarded some and 

stored some at 35 percent of sites. About 22 percent of sites reported that they had 

run out of food or meals at some point during the summer. 

• Children wasted an average of about one-third of the calories and nutrients they 

were served. However, this fraction varied across sites and by foods. About 

11 percent of meals were eaten completely, with no plate waste. At more than twothirds of the sites (68 percent), site staff reported that the children’s dislike of the food 

was the most common reason for waste. About 44 percent of sites provided a “share 

box” to encourage children to share unwanted food and to reduce food waste.3

These key findings are discussed in greater detail in the rest of this chapter. Section A 

presents general characteristics of SFSP meal service. Section B examines the food and nutrient 

content of SFSP meals, including the food items and food groups most commonly served and site 

staffs’ opinions about the least popular and most popular food items. Section C presents 

information on the extent of plate waste and nutrients wasted. 

 3

Plate waste estimates do not include leftover full meals or food items left in the share box at 

the end of the meal service. 
159

A. CHARACTERISTICS OF MEAL SERVICE 

Sponsors are expected to provide nutritious meals that meet SFSP regulations while 

controlling costs and minimizing waste. At the same time, meals must be prepared and served in 

an environment that promotes safe food handling practices. The way that meals are prepared, 

transported, served, and stored are important characteristics affecting meal quality and safety. 

The data presented in this section are based on site supervisors’ reports and interviewers’

observations of meal operations before, during, and after meals. Almost half the sites served 

breakfast, and nearly all of them served lunch; about 5 percent served supper.4

 The site data 

presented in this section have been weighted two ways. Data weighted with the “site weight”

show the percentage of all SFSP sites with a particular characteristic (reported in the tables in the 

“Percentage of Sites” column); data weighted with the “site-meal weight” show the percentage 

of all SFSP meals served at sites with a particular characteristic (reported in the “Percentage of 

Meals Served” column). 

1. Meal Service Characteristics 

More than two-thirds of the sites (70 percent) distributed food for at least one of the 

observed meals from a serving line or a food pick-up line; one-third served food to seated 

children (Table V.1). These findings are similar to findings in the previous national study, which 

showed that about 80 percent of sites distributed meals to children in a serving line or food pickup line (Ohls et al. 1988). 

Eighty-five percent of sites run by school sponsors offered food in a serving line or food 

pick-up line; by contrast, sites run by nonschool sponsors were only slightly more likely to offer 

food in this way as opposed to serving meals to seated children (56 percent and 42 percent, 

respectively; Appendix F, Table F.1). Interviewers observed a very small percentage of sites 

(5 percent) in which site staff distributed meals to children dispersed throughout the site (for 

example, in individual classrooms, on different floors of a recreation building, or both indoors 

and outdoors). The majority of sites (76 percent) served their meals indoors. Most of the ones 

that fed children outdoors were located in playgrounds or parks. 

Only 7 percent of the sites had participants assist with meal preparation or meal service. 

These sites generally were not school-sponsored sites (nonschool sites, 12 percent, compared 

with school sites, 3 percent; Table F.1). 

The interviewers were not always able to observe the sites’ drinking water facilities. When 

they could not do so, they asked site staff whether drinking water was available. Five percent of

 4

All sites in the sample served lunch, but data from the Sponsor-Site Database suggest that a 

few sites nationally did not serve this meal. Snacks were not observed for content, although 

approximately 19 percent of sites served snacks. 
160 

TABLE V.1 

SELECTED MEAL CHARACTERISTICS 

 Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

Meal Service Arrangementa

 (n = 161) 

 

 

Meals Served in Serving Line/Food Pick-Up 

Line 

Variety of food 13 (3.3) 21 (5.8) 

Unitized meal 57 (5.6) 50 (5.7) 

Meals Served to Seated Children 

Variety of food 2 (1.1) 8 (4.0) 

Unitized meal 31 (5.2) 31 (5.7) 

Meals Served to Children as They Arrive 20 (4.9) 15 (4.4) 

Meals Served to Children Dispersed 

Throughout the Site 5 (2.2) 6 (2.3) 

Sites Serving Meals 

Indoors 76 (4.3) 83 (3.6) 

Outdoors 22 (4.3) 14 (3.2) 

Indoors and Outdoors 3 (1.5) 4 (1.9) 

Sites Where Children Assist with Meal 

Preparation or Serving 7 (2.7) 6 (1.9) 

Sites with On-Site Drinking Water 

Available 53 (6.8) 63 (6.3) 

Sites Serving Water with Meals 5 (2.0) 6 (2.3) 

Sites with a Share Box Present at Any 

Meal 44 (4.9) 38 (5.1) 

Sites Where These Meals or Meal 

Components Are Carried Off Site 

(n = 157): 

None 87 (3.7) 91 (2.4) 

Whole Meals 3 (1.8) 3 (1.8) 

Fruits and/or Vegetables Only 6 (3.4) 2 (1.2) 

Other Components 4 (2.1) 4 (1.8) 

Sample Size 162 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sites and meals served nationally. 

a

Multiple answers were possible, so total of percentages may exceed 100 percent. 
161

the observed sites offered water to program participants as part of the meal. Only slightly more 

than half the sites had on-site drinking water. 

To minimize waste and unusable leftovers, the SFSP encourages sites to designate “share 

tables” or “share boxes,” where children may return whole items that they choose not to eat. Site 

staff made these items available to children who wanted additional helpings (“seconds”), stored 

them for future use, and/or discarded them. About 44 percent of sites provided share boxes 

during meals (Table V.1). Most of the foods placed in the share boxes during site visits were 

cold items, such as unopened cartons of milk, fruit juices, fruit, and packaged sandwiches. Some 

hot items, such as breakfast sandwiches, burritos, scrambled eggs, and chicken nuggets, also 

were placed in the share boxes. 

Full meals or parts of meals generally may not be taken off site, but state agencies have the 

option of permitting sponsors to allow certain fruit and vegetable components to be taken off 

site. At the majority of sites (87 percent, serving 91 percent of all meals), no meals or meal 

components were observed to be carried off site.5 At 14 percent of the sites (serving 9 percent of 

all meals), interviewers observed that complete meals, fruits and/or vegetables, or other meal 

components were carried off site (Table V.1). It was not possible to determine whether the state 

agencies had given permission for the fruits and vegetables to be taken. At about 3 percent of 

sites, entire meals were taken off site. However, one such site was located outdoors, and the 

temperature was over 100 degrees on the day of the site visit. 

2. Disposition of Available Meals 

Almost 80 percent of site supervisors reported that their sites always had sufficient meals 

available to serve all of the children who came to their site; however, 22 percent of the sites did 

run out of food or meals at some point (Table V.2). Because attendance at any given site often 

varied from day to day, sponsors could not always predict the number of meals they had to have 

available. To control costs, sponsors had to both have enough meals for the expected number of 

children and minimize the amount of leftovers and unusable food items. Eighty percent of sites 

served more than 90 percent of their available meals on a typical day, based on interviewer 

observations on the day of the site visit. Some site supervisors (at sites that did not serve all their 

meals or food) believed that hot weather explained their site’s low attendance, and therefore, 

their leftovers. 

According to site supervisors’ reports, two-thirds of the sites served 100 percent of their 

available meals as firsts, or “initial” meals. Fewer than 40 percent served “seconds,” which are 

leftover meals served to children as a second complete meal. About one-fifth of the sites that

 5

Interviewers were instructed to code instances in which even one child took food off site. 

At the same time, at large, busy sites, they may have missed isolated instances of small food 

items being put in pockets or backpacks. Entire meals being taken off site generally would be 

more difficult to miss. 
162 

TABLE V.2 

DISPOSITION OF AVAILABLE MEALS 

Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Sites that Had Ever Run Out of Food or Had Insufficient Meals 

for Everyonea,b 22 (4.7) 

Percentage of Available Meals Served on a Typical Dayc 

<70 7 (2.7) 

70 to 79 4 (1.9) 

80 to 89 9 (2.8) 

90 to 99 37 (5.9) 

All available meals served 44 (5.3) 

Median 99.0 — 

Sites Serving All Meals as Firstsa,b 64 (5.1) 

At Sites Serving Seconds, Percentage of All Meals Served 

as Firstsa,b (n = 61) 

90 to 99 88 (3.4) 

80 to 89 9 (3.0) 

70 to 79 3 (1.9) 

At Sites Serving Seconds, Percentage of All Meals Served 

as Seconds (n = 61) 

≤3 21 (5.5) 

>3 to 6 18 (5.9) 

>6 to 10 27 (6.6) 

>10 35 (8.8) 

At Sites with Leftover Meals, Excess Meals a,b,d (n = 155) 

Discarded 29 (5.1) 

Stored 22 (5.1) 

Some discarded, some stored 39 (5.8) 

Returned to sponsor or central kitchen 15 (4.3) 

Donated 4 (2.4) 

Fruit given to children to take home 3 (1.7) 

Sites Serving Meals Left Over from Previous Dayb (n = 111) 75 (5.9) 

Sample Size 162 — 
TABLE V.2 (continued)

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

163

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations, and Site Supervisor Interviews (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sites and meals served nationally. 

a

Because site visits occurred throughout the summer, sites could be visited during the early, middle, or 

late part of their operations. Site supervisors’ responses to this question reflected their experiences as of 

the date of the visit, not experiences over the full summer. 

b

As reported by the site supervisor. 

c

As observed by the interviewer on the day of the site visit. 

d

Multiple responses allowed.
164

served seconds served fewer than 3 percent of all available meals as seconds; more than onethird served more than 10 percent of all available meals as seconds.6

The interviewers asked the site supervisors what site staff did with leftover meals. About 

29 percent of sites with leftover meals or meal components discarded all their leftovers, whereas 

slightly more than 20 percent saved all their leftovers.7 Almost 40 percent discarded some of the 

meals or meal components while saving others. About 15 percent of the sites returned the 

leftovers to the sponsor or to a central kitchen. Only about 4 percent of the sites donated the 

food, and only 3 percent allowed program participants to take leftover fruit home. Three-fourths 

of the sites that stored meals served them the next day. Some site supervisors reported that they 

saved some whole items (for example, unopened juice containers from breakfast) and served 

them later in the day, as a snack. 

3. Handling and Storage of Food 

Approximately 79 percent of the sites had on-site facilities for hand washing, including such 

methods as a hand sanitizer or cleansing wipes (Table V.3). More indoor sites than outdoor sites 

had these facilities (83 percent versus 65 percent, respectively; Table F.2).

Roughly half the sites provided gloves for staff who handled food; however, gloves were 

worn by all of a site’s food-handling staff at only 38 percent of sites. Indoor sites were more

likely than outdoor sites both to provide gloves and to require all food handlers to wear gloves 

while preparing and serving food. However, many sites, particularly outdoor ones, served 

prepackaged, unitized meals, and glove-wearing is less important in these circumstances. 

Most sites served food within 30 minutes after it was set out and ready to eat. Fewer than 

4 percent of sites left meals sitting out for longer than 60 minutes.8

 At outdoor sites, almost 

75 percent of the meals were served within 30 minutes of being set out. 

 6

SFSP regulations permit sponsors to claim a limited number of second meals served to 

children for reimbursement, specifically, as much as 2 percent of the number of first meals 

served at the sites during the claiming period. However, the study staff did not collect data on 

how many of the seconds that the sites served were claimed. 

7

The question on disposition of leftover meals permitted multiple responses, so that the 

percentages choosing the different options adds up to more than 100 percent. However, the first 

three options (discard all, save all, and discard some/save some) were mutually exclusive. 

8

According to SFSP regulations, meals that are prepared off site must be delivered within 

1 hour of the beginning of the meal service (unless the site has adequate facilities for holding hot 

or cold meals within the temperature range required by state or local health regulations) and no 

later than the beginning of the meal service. 
165

TABLE V.3 

HANDLING AND STORAGE OF FOOD 

Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

Food Safety and Handling 

Sites with On-Site Facilities for 

Hand-Washing (n = 155) 79 (4.5) 81 (3.5) 

Sites Where Gloves Are Available 

for Staff Who Handle Food 47 (5.6) 67 (6.0) 

Sites Where All Staff Who Handle 

and Serve Food Wear Gloves 

(n = 158) 38 (5.0) 48 (6.5) 

Number of Minutes Food Sat Out 

Before It Was Served (n = 159) 

0 4 (1.9) 3 (1.6) 

1 to 15 62 (5.7) 65 (6.3) 

16 to 30 17 (4.0) 18 (5.1) 

31 to 60 4 (2.3) 3 (1.8) 

>60 4 (2.3) 1 (0.8) 

Unable to observea

 9 (2.7) 10 (2.9) 

Food Storage 

Sites with On-Site Refrigerator 80 (4.7) 88 (3.4) 

Sites with On-Site Cooler 65 (5.9) 67 (4.4) 

Sites with On-Site Freezer 64 (5.4) 80 (3.8) 

Sample Size 162 — — — 

SOURCE: SPSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sites and meals served nationally. 

a

As described in Appendix A, interviewers were instructed to arrive at least 30 minutes before breakfast, 

and 1 hour to 1 hour 30 minutes before lunch. For 9 percent of the meal observations, however, 

interviewers arrived late because they had difficulty finding the SFSP meal location, or because the meal 

service had started earlier than scheduled. 
166

Nearly 80 percent of the sites had access to refrigerators; somewhat smaller fractions had 

access to coolers or freezers. Not surprisingly, indoor sites were more likely than outdoor sites 

to have both on-site refrigerators and freezers. Approximately 69 percent of outdoor sites had 

access to coolers for temporary food storage, but fewer than one-third had access to refrigerators 

(32 percent) or to freezers (29 percent) (Table F.2). However, none of the site supervisors cited 

lack of food storage facilities as the main reason why food was wasted. About two-thirds 

(68 percent) reported that food was wasted mainly because the children did not like it. (This 

issue is discussed in more detail in Section C.3 of this chapter.) 

4. Meal Order Adjustment and Transport of Food Prepared Off Site 

Sponsors could either prepare their own meals or contract with a vendor—a local school 

food authority (SFA) or a private vendor. Approximately 82 percent of sponsors prepared their 

meals, and 18 percent used a vendor (see Chapter II). Some sponsors prepared meals at central 

kitchens and then delivered them to the sites.9 This section examines site supervisors’

experiences with order adjustment and delivery of meals at sites where meals were prepared 

off site. 

Sponsors may have to adjust the number of meals prepared or ordered based on fluctuations 

in participation, with the objective of providing only one meal per child per meal service while 

allowing for a small percentage of seconds. Site supervisors at about 15 percent of sites that had 

meals delivered reported that they never adjusted their meal orders. Approximately 34 percent

adjusted their meal orders daily, 21 percent did so a couple of times per week, and 31 percent did 

so a couple of times per month (Table V.4). 

Because different arrangements could be used to transport cold food from day to day or for 

different meal components, site supervisors could report multiple methods for transporting to the 

site food items that had to be kept cold. For example, milk could arrive in a refrigerated vehicle, 

and cold sandwiches could arrive in coolers. Forty-eight percent of sites that had cold food 

delivered had at least some food delivered by a refrigerated vehicle, 50 percent had some food 

delivered in coolers transported in a nonrefrigerated vehicle, and about 5 percent had cold food 

transported in a nonrefrigerated vehicle without coolers. Another 5 percent used some other 

means, such as ice chests or insulated bags. 

About 74 percent of the site supervisors reported that food arrived on time all the time. 

Most of the remaining site supervisors reported that it arrived on time most of the time. 

 9

The level of on-site meal preparation varied from complete preparation of meals on site to 

warming of foods or assembling of meals that were delivered to the site. Because interviewers 

did not observe or record the level of food preparation that occurred at the sites, the information 

on meal preparation is based on interviews with sponsors and site supervisors (see Appendix A 

for further details). 
167

TABLE V.4 

MEAL ORDER ADJUSTMENT AND TRANSPORT OF FOOD 

PREPARED OFF SITE 

Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Meals Served 

Standard 

Error 

Meal Order Adjustment 

Frequency (n = 71) 

Daily 34 (6.5) 36 (6.5) 

A Couple of Times per Week 21 (5.7) 29 (7.6) 

A Couple of Times per Month 31 (5.6) 23 (5.3) 

Never 15 (5.2) 12 (4.9) 

Food Transport 

Mode of Transport of Cold Fooda 

(n = 70) 

Refrigerated vehicle 48 (9.5) 48 (9.4) 

Cooler transported in a 

nonrefrigerated vehicle 50 (9.7) 47 (9.6) 

Nonrefrigerated vehicle 5 (2.2) 6 (3.2) 

Other 5 (3.2) 5 (2.9) 

Timely Arrival of Foodb 

All the time 74 (6.6) 75 (8.0) 

Most of the time 25 (6.4) 20 (6.2) 

Some of the time 1 (1.3) 5 (4.4) 

Sample Size 72 — — — 

SOURCE: SPSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sites and meals served nationally. The sample is 

restricted to sites with off-site preparation of meals. 

a

Multiple responses allowed. 

b

Because site visits occurred throughout the summer, sites could be visited during the early, middle, or late part 

of their operations. Site supervisors’ responses to these questions reflected their experiences as of the date of 

the visit, not over the full summer. 
168

B. CONTENT OF MEALS SERVED 

Many factors contribute to providing nutritious meals to SFSP participants. Sponsors must 

ensure that meals follow menu planning guidelines, as specified by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). To contribute to healthy growth, meals should meet dietary guidelines for 

moderation in fat, sodium, and cholesterol while providing adequate calories, vitamins, minerals, 

and fiber. Ideally, in addition to being nutritious, the food would be liked by its recipients—the 

children—and waste would be minimized. At the same time, the goal of serving foods that the 

children will eat rather than waste may conflict with the goal of providing healthy, nutritious 

meals. Planning and serving meals that balance all these goals within available budgets can be 

challenging to sponsors. 

To assess how well SFSP sponsors and sites met these goals, detailed information on SFSP 

meals was collected for a random sample of meals served and plate wastes at selected breakfasts, 

lunches, and suppers (see Appendix A). Nutritionists then used a dietary software program to 

enter and code information from the meal observation and plate waste forms.10 The meal 

analyses are based on a single day’s observation at each site: 556 breakfast meals (or plates) at 

85 sites, 989 lunch meals at 161 sites, and 75 suppers meals at 12 sites. Plate waste analyses are 

discussed in Section C of this chapter. 

1. Most Frequently Served Foods 

Analysis of what foods the SFSP serves frequently provides insight into SFSP meal planning 

practices and background for interpreting the nutrient data discussed in Section B.4 of this 

chapter. Tables V.5 and V.6 list the foods that were observed on at least 5 percent of plates at 

breakfast and lunch, respectively. After the observed foods were coded, the codes were grouped 

into one of the following food categories: milk, dairy (other than milk), fruit, vegetable, 

bread/bread alternate, meat/meat alternate (other than dairy), mixed dish, and other beverage.11 

(Appendix E provides additional details about how foods were categorized and analyzed for the 

food group analysis.) Because many of the foods at supper were observed at only one site, and 

only a small number of supper plates were observed, it is not possible to draw reliable 

conclusions about what foods were served most frequently at SFSP suppers. Therefore, foods 

served at supper are discussed only in general terms. 

 10The nutritionists used the Food Intake Analysis System© 3.99 (FIAS). The FIAS database 

includes the Survey Nutrient Data Base, developed by the USDA’s Agricultural Research 

Service and used in the 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals. Appendix E 

provides additional details on nutrient coding. 

11Mixed dishes are dishes containing a meat/meat alternate, a bread/bread alternate, and/or a 

vegetable. 
TABLE V.5 

FOODS MOST COMMONLY SERVED AT BREAKFAST, 

BY FOOD CATEGORY 

Food Category 

Number of Times 

Item Observed 

(Unweighted)a

Mean Serving 

Size 

(Grams) 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of All 

Plates Containing 

Food Item 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of All 

Plates Containing 

Food Category 

Standard 

Error 

Milk 536 96.6 (1.25) 

2-percent white milk 170 246 (1.4) 31.8 (10.93) Whole white milk 155 250 (3.6) 28.8 (7.98) 1-percent white milk 114 245 (1.3) 16.8 (4.48) 1-percent chocolate milk 54 250 (0.0) 14.2 (6.21) 

Dairyb 69 17.5 (6.92) 

Yogurt 23 119 (6.1) 7.4 (5.61) Processed cheese 21 26 (1.4) 6.9 (4.30) 

Fruit 516 86.7 (5.68) 

Orange juice 191 134 (4.3) 39.8 (9.28) 

Apple juice 87 148 (15.8) 20.4 (7.16) 100-percent fruit juice 

blend 40 128 (3.8) 8.1 (3.74) 

Nectarine 5 136 (0.0) 5.6c (5.40)c

Applesauce, apples 

(cooked or canned) 46 109 (11.5) 5.3 (2.56) 

Vegetable 56 6.1 (3.24) Bread/Bread Alternate 728 93.8 (5.39) 

Cereal 294 27 (1.8) 54.8 (9.18) White bread 71 29 (1.2) 11.7 (5.38) Dark bread (whole 

wheat, rye, bran) 40 44 (7.9) 9.1 (7.58) 

Sweet roll, breakfast 

tart, coffee cake, funnel cake, churro 26 59 (13.0) 8.0 (5.87) 

169 
TABLE V.5 (continued) 

170 

Food Category 

Number of Times 

Item Observed 

(Unweighted)a

Mean Serving 

Size 

(Grams) 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of All 

Plates Containing 

Food Item 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of All 

Plates Containing 

Food Category 

Standard 

Error 

Doughnut 29 64 (4.7) 5.7 (3.21) Crackers (animal, 

graham) 18 18 (3.3) 5.1 (3.40) 

Meat/Meat Alternated 169 14.0 (4.45) 

Eggs 58 91 (15.4) 7.7 (3.26) 

Mixed Dishe 8 0.3 (0.24) 

Other Beveragef 23 1.9 (1.32) 

Sample Sizeg 556 — — — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of all breakfasts served nationally. Only those items served on 5 percent of plates or more are 

listed. Numbers may not agree with figures in Tables V.5 and V.6, on meal compliance, because items in the “Mixed Dish” category may contain food items from other food categories. 

aIf the same food item appeared on a plate more than once, it was counted only once (for example, if a plate had two containers of 1-percent chocolate 

milk). If two different food items from the same food category were observed on a plate, they were counted separately (for example, if a plate had one container of 1-percent chocolate milk and one container of 2-percent white milk). Thus, the number of items in a category may exceed the number of plates. 

bExcludes milk. Dairy foods are considered meat alternates. cEstimates may be unreliable due to the small sample size. dMeat/meat alternate is not a requirement for breakfast. eMay include combinations of meat, dairy, bread, and vegetable items. Items counted as part of mixed dishes are not counted in these separate categories.fOther beverages include soft drinks, iced tea, and fruit-juice drinks, which contain less than 100-percent fruit juice. gRepresents the total number of plates observed at breakfast at 85 sites. 
TABLE V.6 

FOODS MOST COMMONLY SERVED AT LUNCH, 

BY FOOD CATEGORY 

Food Category 

Number of Times 

Item Observed 

(Unweighted)a 

Mean Serving 

Size 

(Grams) 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of All 

Plates Containing 

Food Item 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of All 

Plates Containing 

Food Category 

Standard 

Error 

Milk 910 95.0 (1.49) 

1-percent chocolate milk 322 252 (1.9) 37.2 (5.88) 2-percent white milk 156 244 (0.8) 14.5 (4.36) Whole white milk 124 244 (0.0) 14.2 (2.87) 2-percent chocolate milk 128 251 (1.1) 12.8 (5.25) 1-percent white milk 95 244 (0.0) 9.3 (2.49) Skim chocolate milk 62 250 (0.0) 5.9 (3.49) 

Dairyb 344 28.3 (4.86) 

Processed cheese 224 26 (1.9) 18.7 (4.21) Natural cheese 71 19 (3.5) 8.0 (3.08) 

Fruit 1,050 91.8 (2.07) 

Peaches (cooked or canned) 110 101 (8.7) 13.4 (4.20) Apple juice 75 124 (0.0) 10.2 (3.39) Cantaloupe, honeydew, 

watermelon 83 177 (19.5) 10.0 (4.51) 

Orange (raw) 66 114 (9.2) 9.7 (4.02) Applesauce, apples (cooked or 

canned) 77 117 (6.1) 8.5 (2.45) 

Apple (raw) 108 132 (3.0) 8.2 (3.59) Banana (raw) 65 109 (4.1) 7.8 (3.37) 100-percent fruit juice blend 47 128 (5.1) 7.7 (3.10) Pineapples (canned) 53 109 (8.6) 7.0 (2.66) Fruit cocktail 75 95 (9.9) 6.9 (2.81) Grape juice 49 164 (27.8) 5.9 (2.39) Pears (cooked or canned) 66 109 (8.0) 5.7 (2.09) 

Vegetable 949 60.9 (4.83) 

French fries 148 56 (4.5) 10.3 (4.24) Carrots (raw) 76 48 (5.2) 9.6 (3.25) Corn 91 77 (6.0) 9.5 (3.30) 

171 
TABLE V.6 (continued) 

172 

Food Category 

Number of Times 

Item Observed 

(Unweighted)a 

Mean Serving 

Size 

(Grams) 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of All 

Plates Containing 

Food Item 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of All 

Plates Containing 

Food Category 

Standard 

Error 

Lettuce (raw) 119 11 (2.3) 8.1 (2.46) Tomatoes (raw) 94 30 (6.0) 7.4 (2.35) Salad with assorted vegetables 65 34 (3.5) 5.7 (3.18) Pickles 53 46 (13.0) 5.7 (2.11) 

Bread/Bread Alternate 995 76.1 (5.88) 

Rolls (white, egg, hoagie) 324 49 (2.8) 28.6 (4.57) White bread 155 44 (4.9) 20.7 (5.93) Dark bread (whole wheat, rye, 

bran) 97 47 (9.3) 11.8 (3.56) 

Crackers (animal, graham) 45 26 (3.0) 11.3 (3.95) Cookies 107 36 (5.5) 9.8 (2.65) Salty snacks 87 24 (2.5) 6.2 (2.94) 

Meat/Meat Alternate 705 61.1 (6.03) 

Luncheon meat 170 45 (4.3) 18.6 (4.01) Bologna 75 35 (4.2) 8.6 (2.86) Peanut butter 44 75 (19.8) 6.3 (1.93) Ground beef 62 54 (7.2) 5.5 (2.22) 

Mixed Dishc 345 37.6 (6.15) 

Pizza 110 95 (13.0) 15.7 (4.49) 

Other Beveraged 90 4.3 (1.83) 

Sample Sizee 989 — — — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of all lunches served nationally. Only those items served on 5 percent of plates or more are 

listed. Numbers may not agree with figures in Tables V.5 and V.6, on meal compliance, because items in the “Mixed Dish” category may contain food items from other food categories. 

aIf the same food item appeared on a plate more than once, it was counted only once (for example, if a plate had two containers of 1-percent chocolate 

milk). If two different food items from the same food category were observed on a plate, they were counted separately (for example, if a plate had one container of 1-percent chocolate milk and one container of 2-percent white milk). Thus, the number of items in a category may exceed the number of plates. 
TABLE V.6 (continued) 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

173 

bExcludes milk. Dairy foods are considered meat alternates. cMay include combinations of meat, dairy, bread, and vegetable items. Items counted as part of mixed dishes are not counted in these separate categories. dOther beverages include soft drinks, iced tea, and fruit-juice drinks, which contain less than 100-percent fruit juice. eRepresents the total number of plates observed at lunch at 161 sites. 
174

a. Breakfast 

A “typical” SFSP breakfast consisted of a ready-to-eat cereal, milk, and 100-percent fruit 

juice. Most breakfast sites provided a cold main item, such as cereal, rather than a hot entree 

(60 and 27 percent, respectively; not shown in Table V.5). At 13 percent of sites, however, 

children were given a choice between a hot or cold main entree. A small proportion of meals 

(18 percent) contained a dairy item other than milk, such as yogurt or processed cheese, which 

counts as a meat alternate; even smaller proportions contained a meat or nondairy meat alternate 

(14 percent) or a vegetable (6 percent). This observation is not surprising, as SFSP breakfasts 

are not required to provide a meat/meat alternate. Breakfasts fulfilled the fruit/vegetable 

requirement most often by serving 100-percent fruit juice.

Milk is reported in Tables V.5 and V.6 separately from other dairy products, which are 

served as meat alternates. Almost 97 percent of breakfast meals contained some type of milk. 

Slightly more than three-fourths of all breakfasts (77 percent) contained white milk. About 

29 percent included whole milk, 32 percent included 2-percent or reduced fat milk, and 

31 percent included 1-percent or low-fat milk. After milk, the most frequently served dairy 

items were yogurt and processed cheese. Cheese usually was served as part of a breakfast 

sandwich or breakfast burrito. 

Almost 87 percent of breakfasts included a fruit or fruit juice, most often 100-percent fruit 

juice. Orange juice was the most commonly served juice, followed by apple juice and 

100-percent fruit juice blends. Only about 6 percent of breakfasts included a vegetable. 

Vegetables served in breakfasts included red peppers, green peppers, and onions (not shown in 

Table V.5). 

Cereal was the most common bread/bread alternate, followed first by white bread and then 

by dark bread (whole wheat, rye, or bran). About 8 percent of plates contained a breakfast-type 

pastry (sweet roll, tart, coffee cake, churro, or funnel cake), and 6 percent contained a doughnut. 

Scrambled eggs were the most common item served in breakfast meals that included the 

optional meat or meat alternate at breakfast (14 percent of all breakfast plates). Fewer than 

5 percent of breakfast meals contained such foods as sausage, bacon, beef steak, or pork patties. 

Approximately 2 percent of breakfast meals contained beverages other than milk or fruit 

juice. These beverages usually were fruit-flavored drinks, such as fruit punch with less than 

100-percent juice, which do not satisfy the fruit/vegetable requirement. 

b. Lunch 

Although more difficult to define than a typical breakfast, a “typical” lunch would contain 

milk, a sandwich or “mixed dish,” and a fruit and/or a vegetable (Table V.6). More lunch sites 

included cold main entrees than hot ones (54 and 43 percent, respectively); 3 percent included 

both hot and cold entrees. Hot entrees usually were mixed dishes, such as pizza, whereas cold 

entrees usually were sandwiches. 
175

Ninety-five percent of lunches contained milk. Chocolate milk was served 56 percent of the 

time at lunch. Unlike at breakfast, 1-percent chocolate milk was the most common milk served; 

it was served 37 percent of the time, whereas 2-percent white milk and whole white milk each 

were served 14 percent of the time. Other milks served included 2-percent chocolate milk 

(13 percent of lunches), 1-percent white milk (9 percent of lunches), and skim chocolate milk 

(6 percent of lunches). Fewer than one-third of all lunches included a non-milk dairy item. 

Natural or processed cheese was the most commonly served dairy item other than milk. 

More than 90 percent of the lunches included fruit. The most commonly served fruit was 

cooked or canned peaches (on 13 percent of plates). However, many other types of fruit were 

served almost as frequently as peaches. The interviewers observed each of the following fruits 

on about 8 to 10 percent of lunch plates: apple juice, melons, oranges, applesauce, apples, 

bananas, and fruit juice blend. 

Vegetables may be represented in both the vegetable category and the mixed dish category. 

Table V.6 shows that 61 percent of lunches contained vegetables served as a single dish or item 

(that is, in the vegetable category, rather than in the mixed dish category). French fries, carrots, 

and corn were the most commonly served vegetables (each observed on about 10 percent of 

lunch meals).

A bread/bread alternate was observed in slightly more than three-quarters of all lunches. 

(Mixed dishes also could include bread/bread alternate items.) More than 60 percent of all 

lunches contained a roll or bread—the most commonly served foods in the bread/bread alternate 

category. Rolls and bread reflected the high percentage of sites that served sandwiches. White 

bread was more commonly served than was dark bread. 

Meats or meat alternates (other than those included in mixed dishes) were served on 

61 percent of plates. The most common ones—luncheon meat, bologna, and peanut butter—

reflect the popularity of sandwiches. Ground beef was served on 6 percent of plates on its own 

(that is, not counting when it was served as part of a mixed dish). 

Pizza, the most commonly served mixed dish, was observed in approximately 16 percent of 

lunches.12 Other mixed dishes included corn dogs, hamburgers, cheeseburgers, beef barbecue 

sandwiches, soup, and nachos and cheese; however, each of these was observed on fewer than 

5 percent of the lunch plates. 

 12Mixed dishes may contain one or more food components. The analysis in this section is 

based largely on categorization of foods as they are commonly eaten in SFSP meals, rather than 

by their components. For example, pizza is listed under the mixed dish category, rather than 

under one or more of the other food components (cheese pizza would contribute to the dairy, 

vegetable, and bread components; pepperoni pizza would also contribute to the meat 

component.) However, some mixed dishes were categorized into and coded as their components, 

so the data on mixed dishes underestimate the total mixed dishes. (See Appendix E for details.) 
176

Some lunches contained fruit-flavored drinks and soft drinks, but neither of these “other”

beverages count toward achieving the meal pattern. Fewer than 5 percent of lunches contained 

one of these beverages. 

c. Supper 

Because only 12 sites in the sample served supper, foods served at supper are described for 

qualitative purposes but are not shown in a data table (due to small sample sizes). Suppers 

provided a variety of foods, so no supper meal can be considered “typical.” All the main supper 

entrees the interviewers observed were hot items; very few main entrees were sandwiches. 

Nearly three-fourths (71 percent) of suppers contained a nondairy meat/meat alternate, usually a 

food other than luncheon meat. About one-fourth (24 percent) of suppers contained a mixed 

dish, such as chili con carne, spaghetti with sauce, chicken parmigiana, soup, or a calzone.13

Approximately two-thirds (67 percent) of all suppers contained milk. About 10 percent of 

the sites visited at supper were kosher sites, which may partly explain this low percentage. 

About one-fifth (21 percent) of suppers contained another dairy item, usually cheese. As at 

breakfast and lunch, the majority of suppers included a fruit and a bread/bread alternate 

(95 percent and 99 percent, respectively), and two-thirds (67 percent) included a vegetable, such 

as french fries or string beans. 

2. Food Preferences of Participants 

To help assess what can be done to make SFSP meals appealing to children, the interviewers 

asked site supervisors to indicate, on the basis of their perceptions, program participants’ most 

liked food and least liked food in each of five categories: (1) meat/meat alternate, (2) vegetable, 

(3) fruit, (4) bread/bread alternate, and (5) milk. The supervisors were instructed to report only 

one item in each category. When multiple responses were given, the first response was used in 

the analyses. 

Supervisors at 18 percent of the sites reported that pizza was the children’s most liked 

meat/meat alternate (Table V.7). Pizza was also the mixed dish most frequently served at lunch. 

Ham was nearly as well liked as was pizza; almost 17 percent of site supervisors reported that 

ham was the children’s favorite meat/meat alternate. Other popular meat/meat alternates were 

chicken nuggets or chicken strips, hamburgers or cheeseburgers, and bologna. Bologna also was 

the meat/meat alternate most commonly reported to be the children’s least favorite, reported by 

18 percent of site supervisors. However, bologna was the second most commonly served 

meat/meat alternate, appearing on almost 9 percent of plates. Children at some sites disliked 

tacos or other Mexican-type dishes, roast beef, fish (baked, fried), and tuna sandwiches or tuna 

casserole. 

 13The data in this paragraph should be interpreted with caution, as many of these foods were 

observed on only a few plates. 
TABLE V.7 

FOOD PREFERENCES OF PARTICIPANTS, REPORTED BY SITE SUPERVISORS 

Food Liked Most 

Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error Food Liked Least 

Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Meat/Meat Alternate Meat/Meat Alternate 

Pizza Ham Chicken nuggets, chicken strips Hamburgers, cheeseburgers Bologna 

18 17 12 

9 7 

(3.7) (4.6) (3.1) (2.5) (2.7) 

Bologna Tacos, enchiladas, quesadillas, 

fajitas, nachos, burritos 

Roast beef Fish (baked, fried) Tuna sandwich or casserole 

18 12 10 

9 8 

(5.3) (3.8) (4.4) (3.2) (2.8) 

Vegetable Vegetable 

Carrots Corn Potatoes (French fries, potato puffs) Salad (tossed, chef) Green beans, string beans 

30 28 12 

9 4 

(7.0) (5.3) (3.0) (3.7) (2.0) 

Peas Carrots Celery Green beans or string beans Broccoli 

19 15 13 11 11 

(5.3) (5.0) (4.3) (3.4) (3.6) 

Fruit Fruit 

Oranges Peaches Apples or apple sauce Mixed fruit cup Bananas 

17 17 16 

9 8 

(4.6) (3.4) (4.2) (2.7) (3.0) 

Apples or apple sauce Oranges Pears Bananas Mixed fruit cup 

25 14 12 10 10 

(5.3) (4.4) (3.3) (3.1) (3.2) 

Bread/Bread Alternate Bread/Bread Alternate 

White bread Buns (hotdog, hamburger, hoagie) Rolls (all types) Breadsticks Dark bread (rye, whole wheat) 

54 13 12 

4 3 

(4.8) (3.3) (2.7) (1.5) (2.3) 

Dark bread (rye, whole wheat) White bread Rolls (all types) Buns (hotdog, hamburger, hoagie) Corn bread 

37 22 18 

9 5 

(6.2) (5.0) (5.7) (3.0) (1.9) 

177 
TABLE V.7 (continued)

178 

Food Liked Most 

Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error Food Liked Least 

Percentage of 

Sites 

Standard 

Error 

Milka Milka 

Chocolate White 

93 

7 

(3.0) (3.0) 

White Chocolate 

96 

4 

(1.9) (1.9) 

Sample Size 161 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Supervisor Interviews (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sites nationally. Except for milk, the five most frequently mentioned foods in each 

category are listed. 

aBecause many site supervisors did not specify the fat content of the milk (whole, 2 percent, 1 percent, or skim), data are reported only by flavor. 
179

The most liked and least liked foods in each of the three other categories (vegetables, fruits, 

and bread/bread alternates) overlapped substantially. Possible explanations for this finding 

include different tastes and preferences of program participants in different areas of the country 

and lack of food variety within sites. Nearly equal percentages of site supervisors reported that 

corn and carrots were the most liked vegetable. Although corn does not appear on the “liked the 

least” list, carrots ranked as the second most disliked vegetable. Similarly, supervisors most 

frequently listed oranges, apples, fruit cup, and bananas as fruits that children “liked the most,”

and as fruits they “liked the least,” albeit in a different rank order. 

As in the national study by Ohls et al. (1988), children preferred various forms of white 

bread, including standard loaf white bread or hotdog, hamburger, or hoagie buns, to other 

breads/bread alternates. They liked dark bread (rye, whole wheat, or bran) the least. Likewise, 

the children’s preference for chocolate milk over white milk has withstood the test of time. 

The data presented in Table V.7 are based on site supervisors’ reports of specific food likes 

and food dislikes. In some cases, however, the supervisors also gave such responses as “no other 

[food item] is served,” “no [food item] is served at all,” “the children haven’t had any other,” and 

“the children like none.” Site supervisors at 16 percent of the sites gave one of those responses, 

rather than reporting a least-liked vegetable. The comments represent 13 percent of responses 

about least-liked fruits and 8 percent of responses about least-liked bread/bread alternates. These 

relatively high percentages suggest that some sites offered only a limited variety of fruits, 

vegetables, and bread/bread alternates. 

3. Nonschool Sponsors’ Compliance with SFSP Meal Pattern 

All SFSP sponsors must meet USDA menu planning requirements. The menu planning 

requirements for the SFSP program are designed to provide nutritious, well-balanced meals to 

each child. Sponsors other than SFAs must serve meals that follow the SFSP meal pattern. Each 

meal has specific requirements for both the types of food served and serving sizes. Under the 

SFSP meal pattern, breakfasts must include three components: (1) milk, (2) bread or a bread 

alternate, and (3) fruit and/or a vegetable. Meat or a meat alternate is optional. The SFSP 

lunch/supper meal pattern requires four components: (1) milk, (2) bread or a bread alternate, 

(3) two fruits and/or vegetables, and (4) meat or a meat alternate. USDA also has regulations for 

the minimum serving sizes of each food component. Sponsors are encouraged by USDA to 

serve larger portions to children age 12 or older, as these children have greater food needs than 

do younger ones. In addition, sponsors may receive permission from their state agency to serve 

smaller portions to preschool children, using the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) 

meal pattern. (See Table E.2 for details on the SFSP meal pattern requirements.)
180

School sponsors may use either the SFSP meal pattern or the same menu planning approach 

they use for the school meal programs (7CFR 225.16, 7CFR 220.8, and 7CFR 210.10). There 

are two main approaches used in the school meal programs, and each has two variants: 

1. Food-Based Menu Planning. Under the traditional food-based meal pattern, school 

sponsors must offer specific food components and food quantities based on age and 

grade groups. The enhanced approach uses the same meal pattern and age groups as 

does the traditional approach, but it has an additional optional age/grade group for 

grades 7 through 12. 

2. Nutrient Standard Menu Planning. Nutrient standard menu planning is designed to 

meet the goal of providing one-fourth of the RDAs for key nutrients (energy, protein, 

vitamins A and C, calcium, and iron) at breakfast, and one-third of the RDAs for 

these key nutrients at lunch. Menus are planned using approved computer software 

so that these RDA standards are met, on average, over the course of a week. SFAs 

may do the menu planning themselves (NuMenus), or they may have it done by a 

third party (Assisted NuMenus). 

SFAs also may use OVS in the SFSP, a system which is used in most schools for the school 

meal programs. Nonschool sponsors may not use OVS. Under OVS, a child may refuse one or 

more items that he or she does not intend to eat, but the meal still counts as a reimbursable meal. 

The rules for OVS differ slightly according to which menu planning approach is used. At sites at 

which OVS is used, the observations of foods selected by children do not necessarily reflect what 

was offered; thus, it is not possible to use these observations to assess whether meals being 

offered meet the menu planning requirements. 

For both school and nonschool sponsors that use food-based meal patterns, a few exceptions 

apply. One exception applies to sponsors that request and obtain an exemption for religious 

reasons. For example, sponsors that adhere to kosher dietary laws may request a milk exemption 

for lunch and supper, replace the milk with juice, and serve milk at breakfast and, if possible, at 

snacks (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002b).14,15 Other exceptions to the SFSP meal pattern 

include (1) state authorizations to serve smaller food quantities for sponsors that serve children 

younger than age 6, as noted; and (2) food substitutions for individuals with medical or special 

dietary needs (7CFR 225.16). 

Because school sponsors may use any one of a number of methods to plan meals (food-based or 

nutrient standard menu planning), and because they may use OVS, meal pattern compliance 

 14Kosher dietary laws allow meat alternates, such as fish, cheese, eggs, nut and seed butter, 

and nuts and seeds, to be consumed with milk at the same meal. 

15Fewer than 2 percent of the visited sites were kosher ones. Some sponsors of the kosher 

sites served peanut butter or dairy items for meat and thus were able to serve milk during lunch 

or supper. The analysis therefore includes kosher meals, with any findings on milk discussed 

with the kosher exception in mind. 
181

could be assessed only for nonschool-sponsored meals.16 Tables V.8 and V.9 show the 

percentage of meals containing the required components in the minimum serving sizes, as 

defined by SFSP regulations, for nonschool sponsors at breakfast and lunch, respectively. The 

tables also show, for each component, the percentage of meals meeting the minimum serving 

size, the percentage of meals falling short of the required serving size, and the percentage of 

meals missing a component altogether. A similar data table for school-sponsored meals is 

provided for descriptive purposes to describe the food components typically served at breakfasts 

and lunches by SFAs and their amounts relative to meal pattern standards (Appendix Table F.3); 

however, these data should not be interpreted as reflecting compliance with regulations. Sites 

sponsored by SFAs may have been using the OVS option. Appendix Table F.4 presents data on 

food components served separately for OVS and non-OVS sites, based on the sponsors’ reports 

of the use of OVS at any of their sites.17

a. Nonschool Sponsors’ Meal Pattern Compliance at Breakfast 

About 55 percent of breakfasts at nonschool-sponsored sites complied with all SFSP meal 

pattern requirements for both the type and quantity of required foods. About half of all 

noncompliant breakfasts had an inadequate serving size for the fruit/vegetable component 

(Table V.8). Of the required components, the milk and bread/bread alternate requirements were 

met most often, followed by the fruit/vegetable component. Ninety-three percent of nonschool 

sponsors’ breakfasts met the milk requirement, 84 percent met the bread/bread alternate 

requirement, and 73 percent met the fruit/vegetable requirement.18

SFSP meal pattern regulations require that each program participant receive 8 fluid ounces 

of milk at each meal served. This amount is equivalent to a one-half pint carton, which was the 

way that most milk was served. Milk served at breakfast usually was a beverage or was poured 

over cereal. Interviewers observed that 93 percent of breakfasts at nonschool sites contained at 

least 8 fluid ounces of milk (Table V.8). (Fewer than 1 percent of breakfasts served milk in 

insufficient amounts.) Approximately 6 percent of breakfast meals at nonschool sites had 

no milk. 

 16Data on menu planning methods used by school-sponsored sites were not collected in this 

study. Furthermore, use of OVS was assessed only at the sponsor level. 

17It was difficult to determine solely on the basis of observations whether sites were in fact 

using OVS. Furthermore, many site staff were unfamiliar with the term and therefore could not 

reliably report whether they used OVS. The definition for OVS is based on the school sponsor’s 

report that OVS was used at one or more of its sites. 

18To determine the extent of variability in meal compliance within sites, we also assessed 

whether all, some, or none of the meals met all the required food components. All sampled 

breakfast meals served by nonschool sponsors met all the requirements at 38 percent of sites, 

some meals met all the requirements at 38 percent of sites, and no meals met all the requirements 

at 24 percent of sites (based on weighted tabulations of data for 31 sites). 
TABLE V.8 

MEAL COMPLIANCE AT BREAKFAST FOR NONSCHOOL SPONSORS 

(Percentage of Breakfasts Observed) 

 Component 

Present in 

Required 

Amountsa

Standard 

Error 

Component 

Present, Not in 

Required 

Amountsa

Standard 

Error 

Component 

Not Present 

Standard 

Error 

All Required Components 54.6 (11.43) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Milk requirement 93.4 (2.42) 0.8 (0.70) 5.8 (2.56) Fruit and/or vegetable requirement 73.4 (8.55) 21.8 (8.20) 4.8 (2.53) Bread/bread alternate requirement 83.8 (12.24) 1.9 (1.90) 14.4 (12.25) Meat/meat alternate optionb 30.7 (12.67) n.a. n.a. 69.3 (12.67) 

Sample Sizec 187 — — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of meals served nationally. 

aAs defined by SFSP meal pattern guidelines. bAt breakfast, the meat/meat alternate component is optional. This table reflects whether a meat or a meat alternate component was present, but 

not whether it was present in the suggested amount. 

cTotal number of meals observed at breakfast at 31 sites. 

n.a. = not applicable. 

182 
TABLE V.9 

MEAL COMPLIANCE AT LUNCH FOR NONSCHOOL SPONSORS 

(Percentage of Lunches Observed) 

 Component 

Present in 

Required 

Amountsa

Standard 

Error 

Component 

Present, Not in 

Required 

Amountsa

Standard 

Error 

Component 

Not Present 

Standard 

Error 

All Required Components 70.6 (7.33) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Milk requirementb

Fruit and/or vegetable requirement Bread/bread alternate requirement Meat/meat alternate requirement 

96.9 96.2 95.8 79.9 

(1.61) (2.78) (1.90) (5.82) 

0.1 3.7 3.9 

20.1 

(0.07) (2.76) (1.88) (5.81) 

3.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 

(1.61) (0.09) (0.25) (0.01) 

Sample Sizec 449 — — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of meals served nationally. 

aAs defined by SFSP meal pattern guidelines. bIncludes kosher meals, where sites may have been exempt from serving milk. Fewer than 1 percent of nonschool sites and fewer than 2 percent 

of school sites visited at lunch were considered kosher sites, where a milk exemption was likely. 

cTotal number of meals observed at lunch at 83 sites. 

n.a. = not applicable. 

183 
184

To meet the bread/bread alternate requirement, an SFSP breakfast must contain one 

serving19 of the following: one slice of bread; 1 ounce of dry cereal; one-half cup cooked cereal; 

one serving of a roll, muffin, or biscuit; or one-half cup cooked pasta. About 84 percent of the 

breakfasts at nonschool sites satisfied the bread or bread alternate component. Approximately 

14 percent of nonschool breakfasts did not contain any bread or a bread alternate. 

To meet the fruit/vegetable requirement, an SFSP breakfast must contain any of the 

following: a minimum of one-half of a cup of fruits and/or vegetables or 4 fluid ounces of fullstrength fruit or vegetable juice. Seventy-three percent of breakfasts observed at nonschoolsponsored sites contained a fruit and/or vegetable in the minimum serving size; 22 percent 

contained the component, but in inadequate amounts. About 5 percent of breakfasts at nonschool 

sites did not contain any fruit or vegetable. At these breakfast meals, a fruit-juice drink that was 

less than 100-percent fruit juice sometimes was served instead.20

Although the meat/meat alternate component is optional at breakfast, about 30 percent of 

breakfast meals at nonschool-sponsored sites included it as part of the meal.21 Typical meats 

served at breakfast were sausage or bacon; the most typical meat alternates were scrambled eggs, 

yogurt, and processed cheese. 

b. Nonschool Sponsors’ Meal Pattern Compliance at Lunch 

Lunch has four required components and, in some cases, the components’ serving size 

requirements are higher than at breakfast.22 Seventy-one percent of lunches served by nonschool 

sponsors met or exceeded the minimum serving sizes of all the required components 

(Table V.9).23 Meal compliance at lunch was thus higher than at breakfast for nonschoolsponsored sites. The most frequent cause of noncompliance was an inadequate portion size for 

 19SFAs using food-based menu planning may serve (1) two servings of a meat or meat 

alternate; or (2) one serving of a bread or bread alternate, and one serving of a meat or meat 

alternate at breakfast. 

20In general, juice drinks contain between 10-percent and 99-percent juice and added 

sweeteners, flavors, and, sometimes, fortifiers, such as vitamin C or calcium. 

21USDA has established guidelines for the minimum serving sizes of meat/meat alternates; 

however, because that component is optional, Tables V.8 and V.9 show only whether plates 

contained the component. 

22SFSP meal requirements for supper are the same as those for lunch. Due to small sample 

sizes (50 suppers observed at nonschool sites), the study does not report meal pattern findings at 

supper. 

23All sampled lunch meals met all the requirements at 65 percent of nonschool sites, some 

meals met all the requirements at 10 percent, and no meals met all the requirements at 

24 percent. (Figures do not add to 100 due to rounding.) 
185

the meat/meat alternate component. Data from the previous national study indicate that 

94 percent of lunch plates contained all the required components, but the adequacy of quantities 

was not assessed (Ohls et al. 1988).24

Milk usually was served as a beverage at lunch. Because milk almost always was served in 

a carton, milk service usually was an “all or none” situation (that is, when it was served, it was 

served in an adequate amount). About 97 percent of all lunches served at nonschool sites 

contained at least 8 fluid ounces of milk. Fewer than 1 percent of nonschool lunches included 

milk in insufficient amounts to meet the minimum requirement. Taken together, about 

97 percent of lunches included milk, which is similar to the 98 percent observed by Ohls et al. 

(1988). The fact that 3 percent of the lunches at nonschool sites did not contain milk might 

partly reflect the observation of sites serving meat in kosher meals.25 Ohls et al. did not visit 

residential camps for the 1986 study, and camps are the source of most kosher meals. 

Lunch must provide at least two kinds of vegetables or fruits, or a combination of both. The 

minimum quantity required—three-quarters of a cup—is larger than the breakfast requirement. 

Full-strength vegetable or fruit juice may be counted to meet no more than one-half of this 

requirement. Interviewers observed an array of fresh and canned fruits and vegetables and fruit 

juice at lunch. About 96 percent of the lunches at nonschool sites complied with the 

fruit/vegetable requirement. The remaining 4 percent of lunches contained at least some fruit 

and/or vegetable, although not in the required amounts. Together, fruits or vegetables were 

present in nearly 100 percent of lunches at nonschool sites, a slightly higher proportion than the 

95 percent reported by Ohls et al. (1988). 

The bread/bread alternate requirement at lunch is identical to that at breakfast. Many 

lunches that the interviewers observed contained a sandwich, and the sandwich’s bread, roll, or 

bun therefore fulfilled the bread/bread alternate requirement. Such bread alternates as pizza 

crust, crackers, and pasta also can meet the requirement. Roughly 96 percent of lunches at 

nonschool sites complied with the bread or bread alternate requirement. An additional 4 percent 

came close but did not provide the minimum serving size. 

Unlike at breakfast, the meat/meat alternate component is required at lunch for sponsors 

following the SFSP meal pattern. The nonschool-sponsored lunches met the requirement by 

including such items as pizza with meat, cheese pizza, chicken nuggets, hamburgers, hot dogs, or 

luncheon meat in sandwiches. Peanut butter, yogurt, nuts, cheese, and similar foods also are 

included in this category. Approximately 80 percent of lunches at nonschool sites met the 

minimum serving requirements for the meat/meat alternate component. Most of the remaining 

lunches contained at least some meat or meat alternate component, but not in the required 

minimum amount. The interviewers observed serving sizes of meat or a meat alternate ranging 

from 1.2 to 1.9 ounces, whereas USDA requires that at least 2.0 ounces be served. 

 24The study by Ohls et al. examined all types of sites, as all sponsors were using the SFSP 

meal pattern at that time. 

25For lunch meals, 1 percent of nonschool sites were kosher. 
186

The discrepancy in serving sizes for meats or meat alternates suggests that some food 

preparation or food service staff were not aware of the minimum serving requirements, or that 

they did not know how much to serve to meet the requirement. Other discrepancies could have 

been due to measurement error by cooks or to shrinkage during cooking. In addition, the results 

for lunch meat/meat alternate compliance should be interpreted with caution. Interviewers were 

trained to record and visualize amounts for all ingredients for mixed dishes, such as pizza (for 

example, with cheese, extra cheese, or pepperoni) and burritos (with or without meat or cheese). 

In these cases, the closest Food Intake Analysis System (FIAS) recipe was coded; the amount of 

meat or cheese in a FIAS recipe could differ from the actual amount contained in the recipe or 

food item served at an SFSP meal. 

4. Nutrient Content of Meals Served 

Although SFSP menu planning approaches are not always explicitly based on nutrient 

levels, all the approaches to menu planning described in Section B.3 are intended to meet 

children’s daily needs, which are based on the RDAs for energy and nutrients. The RDA is the 

average daily nutrient intake level sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all 

healthy individuals in a particular life stage and gender group (Institute of Medicine, National 

Academy of Sciences 2000a).26

The SFSP nutrient analyses in this section are presented as follows: 

• Means and 1-day distributions of energy and key nutrients compared with the RDA 

and other nutrition standards. Key nutrients are those included in the School 

Breakfast Program (SBP) and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 

regulations. 

• Means and 1-day distributions for other nutrients compared with the RDA 

• Means for energy and key nutrients compared with recent findings for school 

breakfasts and school lunches 

These comparisons determine how well SFSP meals served met the RDA or other nutrition 

standards for most children participating in the program in 2001. In each analysis, data are 

presented for breakfast, lunch, and supper consecutively. Separate analyses for school- and 

nonschool-sponsored meals are shown in Appendix F and are discussed briefly in the following 

sections. 

 26Beginning in 1997, the Institute of Medicine gradually has been releasing updated RDAs 

for specific nutrients based on the DRIs. The DRIs include nutrient standards for RDAs and for 

AIs, to be used when the available scientific evidence is insufficient to establish an RDA. In this 

study, the AI was used as the nutrition standard for calcium, as an RDA is not available. 
187

a. Key Nutrients in SFSP Meals 

School meals are expected to provide one-fourth of the RDA at breakfast and one-third of 

the RDA at lunch for key nutrients. Key nutrients in the SBP and NSLP regulations are energy, 

protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, and iron. In this analysis, standards similar to those 

applied in the school meals programs were used to assess the percentage of the RDA provided by 

SFSP breakfasts and lunches served.27,28

On average over a week, school meals also must meet the following dietary guidelines: 

provide 30 percent of calories or less from total fat, provide less than 10 percent of calories from 

saturated fat, reduce sodium and cholesterol levels, and increase the level of dietary fiber (7CFR 

210.10 and 7CFR 220.8). Again, this study’s goal was to use similar standards to assess SFSP 

meals. Because the last two guidelines do not include quantitative standards, the following 

standards were used to assess SFSP meals: 

• The National Research Council’s recommendations in Diet and Health for sodium 

(600 mg or less at breakfast and 800 mg or less at lunch and supper) and for 

cholesterol (75 mg or less at breakfast and 100 mg or less at lunch and supper) 

(National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 1989b) 

• The American Health Foundation’s recommendations for fiber (Williams 1995)29

To provide a complete view of macronutrients (protein, fat, and carbohydrate), the data tables 

also present the percentage of calories from carbohydrate. School meal regulations do not 

specify a carbohydrate standard, but carbohydrate content is related to the recommended dietary 

guideline to “choose a diet with plenty of grain products, fruits, and vegetables” (7CFR 210.10 

and 7CFR 220.8). The National Research Council’s recommendation for the percentage of 

calories from carbohydrate (more than 55 percent) was used as the nutrition standard (National 

Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 1989b). 

 27The school meal regulations are based on the 1989 RDAs and the 1990 Dietary Guidelines 

(7CFR 210.10 and 7CFR 220.8). This study used the updated DRI RDAs for iron and vitamins 

A and C and the AI for calcium in order to provide the most scientifically up-to-date assessment 

possible of the nutritional quality of SFSP meals (Institute of Medicine 1997, 2001, and 2000b). 

28To evaluate whether SFSP meals met the RDA standard, the mean energy and key nutrient 

content of meals served were compared with the RDA standard for the two age groups that most 

closely correspond to the age range of most children in the SFSP (4 to 8 years and 9 to 13 years). 

29The daily standard for grams of fiber is “age plus 5.” To calculate the standard used in this 

study, this number was multiplied by one-fourth for breakfast and by one-third for lunch or 

supper. For example, the daily standard for an 8-year-old child is 8 + 5 = 13 grams, 

corresponding to standards of 3.25 grams for breakfast and 4.3 grams for lunch or supper. 
188

This analysis begins by comparing the mean energy and key nutrient content of SFSP meals 

served with the most up-to-date RDA standard available. A comparison of the mean nutrient 

value relative to the RDA standard is useful for assessing the meals served overall. To provide 

additional information for interpreting the overall pattern of energy and nutrients served across 

SFSP sites, the analysis then presents the distributions of key nutrients in SFSP meals.30,31 The 

distributions may be useful in planning SFSP menus, and in assessing the variability of SFSP 

meals across the program; note, however, that they are based on only a single day’s observation 

per site. Because sites serve a variety of foods over time, the distribution of nutrients served 

over time is likely to be less dispersed than is the distribution for a single day. Meals that are 

low in one nutrient on one day may be balanced by meals that are high in that nutrient on other 

days. 

Breakfasts. SFSP breakfasts provided close to the standard (one-fourth of the RDA) for 

energy, and exceeded the standard for key nutrients (Table V.10). The breakfasts provided an 

average of 424 calories, or 21 percent of the RDA for energy and 54 percent of the RDA for 

protein. They provided both the younger age group and the older age group with more than onefourth of the RDA for key nutrients. The mean vitamin C content of the breakfasts corresponds 

to 152 percent of the RDA for children aged 4 to 8 years, and to 84 percent of the RDA for 

children aged 9 to 13 years. The mean iron intake corresponds to 42 percent and 53 percent of 

the RDA for younger children and older children, respectively. These two findings are important 

because the bioavailability of iron is increased if a food containing iron is served with a vitamin 

C source, and because the iron status of low-income children is an important health issue (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services 2000). 

The nutrient patterns of SFSP breakfasts reflect the fact that many of the observed meals 

consisted of ready-to-eat cereals, milk, and juice. These foods provided children with both key 

nutrients and energy: fortified cereals and grains contributed iron; milk contributed protein and 

calcium; and 100-percent fruit juice contributed vitamin C. 

On average, as shown in Table V.11, SFSP breakfasts met the standards for both age groups 

for the percentage of calories from total fat (mean of 25 percent) and the percentage of calories 

from carbohydrate (mean of 61 percent). The percentage of calories from saturated fat (mean of 

11 percent) did not meet current dietary recommendations to reduce saturated fat to less than 

10 percent of calories. Food sources of saturated fat at breakfast included breakfast sandwiches; 

meats, such as bacon and sausage; and whole and 2-percent milk. 

 30For ease of presentation, the mean, the nutrition standard, and the distribution of nutrients 

related to the dietary standards are shown in the same data table. 

31Tables of distributions of energy and nutrients include the values for the 10th, 25th, 50th, 

75th, and 90th percentiles of meal plates observed on a single day at SFSP sites. If the value of 

the nutrition standard approximates the median, or 50th percentile, then, on any given day, 

50 percent of the meals fall below the standard and 50 percent fall at or above the standard. 
189 

TABLE V.10 

MEAN ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP BREAKFASTS 

AND COMPARISON WITH RDAsa 

Mean 

Standard 

Error 

Mean as Percentage 

of Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year Olds 

Mean as Percentage 

of Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year Olds 

Macronutrients 

 

Energy (kcal) 424 (28.3) 21b

 21b

Protein (g) 15.2 (1.02) 54b

 54b

Vitamins and Minerals 

Vitamin A (RE) 328 (26.8) 82c

 55c

Vitamin C (mg) 38 (5.0) 152 84 

Calcium (mg) 378 (13.1) 47d

 29d

Iron (mg) 4.2 (0.40) 42 53 

Sample Sizee 556 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfast meals served nationally. 

a

School meal regulations are based on the 1989 RDAs and 1990 Dietary Guidelines. For purposes of 

this study, the updated Dietary Reference Intake RDAs for iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C and the 

Adequate Intake (AI) for calcium were used. The AI is used as the recommended standard for 

calcium because an RDA is not available. 

b

Value represents the comparison of the mean relative to the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 

years. 

c

Value represents the upper bound, as the mean is expressed as Retinol Equivalents (REs), and the 

RDA is expressed as Retinol Activity Equivalents. See Appendix E for a detailed discussion. 

d

Values represents the percentage of the AI. 

e

Total number of breakfasts observed at 85 sites. 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance. 
TABLE V.11 

MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS 

SERVED ON A SINGLE DAY AT BREAKFAST 

Nutrition Standarda Percentile 

Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 

Energy (kcal) 424 (28.3) 500b 500b 251 286 407 507 600 

Protein (g) 15.2 (1.02) 7b 7b 9.6 10.3 13.2 16.4 25.4 Total Fat (% kcal) 25.1 (1.55) ≤30 ≤30 13.5 18.7 23.0 32.0 39.1 

Saturated Fat (% kcal) 10.9 (0.40) <10 <10 5.3 8.6 10.8 13.4 15.7 Carbohydrate (% kcal) 60.7 (1.56) >55 >55 45.4 54.0 62.9 67.2 74.0 Vitamin A (RE) 328 (26.8) 100 150 142 206 307 391 580 

Vitamin C (mg) 38 (5.0) 6.25 11.25 5 12 40 53 77 

Calcium (mg) 378 (13.1) 200c 325c 307 324 346 440 502 

Iron (mg) 4.2 (0.40) 2.5 2.0 1.6 1.9 3.8 5.8 7.9 

Sodium (mg) 537 (59.3) ≤600 ≤600 211 281 412 729 1,054 

Cholesterol (mg) 53 (8.8) ≤75 ≤75 14 18 29 44 96 

Dietary Fiber (g) 2.4 (0.30) 2-3 3.5-4.5 0.7 1.3 2.0 3.0 4.1 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfasts served nationally. Based on 556 plates observed at 85 sites. 

aOne-fourth of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for energy and nutrients; Dietary Guidelines for fat and saturated fat densities; National 

Research Council recommendation for carbohydrate density, sodium, and cholesterol; and American Health Foundation for fiber. School meal regulations are based on the 1989 RDAs and 1990 Dietary Guidelines. For purposes of this study, we used the updated Dietary Reference Intake RDAs for iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C, and the Adequate Intake (AI) for calcium. The AI is used as the recommended standard for calcium because an RDA is not available. 

bValue represents one-fourth the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. cValue represents one-fourth of the AI. 

SE = standard error.

190 
191

On average, breakfasts met the standard for cholesterol (mean of 53 mg) for younger and 

older ages, but not the standard for dietary fiber for the older age group. Fiber content (mean, 

2.4 grams) met the recommendations only for the younger age group. Fiber sources included 

breakfast cereals, other grain products, and fruit. The mean sodium content (537 mg) met the 

standard of providing 600 mg of sodium or less. Breakfast foods containing high levels of 

sodium (and saturated fat) included prepackaged breakfast sandwiches and meats, such as bacon 

and sausage. 

In general, the nutrition standards for energy and for many of the nutrients analyzed were 

close to the median for breakfast meals (Table V.11). A high percentage of meals met the 

standard for some key nutrients, such as protein and vitamin C. For example, the protein 

standard for breakfast is 7 grams, which falls below the 10th percentile, indicating that more than 

90 percent of breakfasts met the protein standard (based on 1-day observations at each site). 

More than 90 percent of breakfasts met the calcium standard for children aged 4 to 8 years, and 

75 percent met the standard for those aged 9 to 13 years. This finding on calcium is consistent 

with the milk findings reported previously in this chapter. However, more than half of all 

breakfasts did not meet the saturated fat standard of less than 10 percent of calories. In addition, 

more than half did not meet the standard for dietary fiber. 

School- and Nonschool-Sponsored Breakfasts. Because school sponsors can use foodbased menu planning or nutrient standard menu planning and can use OVS, this study compares, 

for school- and nonschool-sponsored sites, the mean energy and key nutrients at breakfast 

relative to the RDAs. The comparison, presented in Table F.5 in Appendix F, shows that 

nutrient patterns generally were similar for school- and nonschool-sponsored breakfasts. Mean 

energy at breakfast was below the RDA standard of 25 percent for energy for both groups (21 

percent of the RDA for school-sponsored breakfasts, and 22 percent for nonschool-sponsored 

ones). Tables F.6 and F.7 show the means and distributions of energy, the key nutrients cited in 

school meal regulations, and other nutrients. On average, both school sponsors and nonschool 

sponsors served breakfasts that met the standard for the percentage of calories from total fat; 

however, nonschool-sponsored sites served a higher proportion of breakfasts that met the 

standard for 30 percent of calories or less from total fat than did school-sponsored sites (more 

than half compared with fewer than one-fourth of all breakfasts). 

Vended Breakfasts. A comparison of the mean nutrients in vended and nonvended 

breakfasts showed that vended breakfasts provided an average of 359 calories, 18 percent of 

calories from total fat, 9 percent calories from saturated fat, and 286 mg of sodium, and that 

nonvended breakfasts provided 440 calories, 27 percent of calories from total fat, 11 percent of 

calories from saturated fat, and 597 mg of sodium (Table F.8; sample sizes are 98 vended meals 

and 458 nonvended meals). The profiles for saturated fat and sodium are significantly closer to 

the guidelines in vended breakfasts than in nonvended ones. Vended and nonvended breakfasts 

both fell short of the energy standard. Vended breakfasts provided 18 percent of the RDA for 

energy, and nonvended breakfasts provided 22 percent; the difference was not statistically 

significant. 

Lunches. SFSP lunches provided an average of 663 calories, or 33 percent of the RDA for 

energy (Table V.12). Means for key nutrients exceeded the RDA standard for younger and older 

children. Lunches provided an average of 108 percent of the RDA for vitamin C for children 
192 

TABLE V.12 

MEAN ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP LUNCHES 

AND COMPARISON WITH RDAsa 

Mean 

Standard 

Error 

Mean as Percentage 

of Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year Olds 

Mean as Percentage 

of Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year Olds 

Macronutrients 

Energy (kcal) 663 (15.5) 33b

 33b

Protein (g) 26.5 (0.74) 95b

 95b

Vitamins and Minerals 

Vitamin A (RE) 379 (55.3) 95c

 63c

Vitamin C (mg) 27 (2.8) 108 60 

Calcium (mg) 448 (11.8) 56d

 34d

Iron (mg) 4.0 (0.12) 40 50 

Sample Sizee 989 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of lunch meals served nationally. 

a

School meal regulations are based on the 1989 RDAs and 1990 Dietary Guidelines. For purposes of 

this study, the updated Dietary Reference Intake RDAs for iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C and the 

Adequate Intake (AI) for calcium were used. The AI is used as the recommended standard for 

calcium because an RDA is not available. 

b

Value represents the comparison of the mean relative to the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 

years. 

c

Value represents the upper bound, as the mean is expressed as Retinol Equivalents (REs), and the 

RDA is expressed as Retinol Activity Equivalents. See Appendix E for a detailed discussion. 

d

Values represents the percentage of the AI. 

e

Total number of lunches observed at 161 sites. 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance. 
193

aged 4 to 8 years. Given that more than 90 percent of lunch plates included fruit, it is not 

surprising that the vitamin C contributions are high. For example, a single orange would provide 

both age groups with more than 100 percent of the RDA for vitamin C. Fortified breads and 

rolls provided significant amounts of iron, and milk and dairy products helped the lunches meet 

the AI standard for calcium for children in both age groups. 

Table V.13 provides the means and distributions for energy, key nutrients, and nutrients 

related to the dietary guidelines for a single day at lunch. More than 90 percent of lunches met 

the protein and vitamin C standards. More than 90 percent met the calcium standard for children 

aged 4 to 8 years, and about half met the standard for children aged 9 to 13 years. 

On average, SFSP lunches did not meet the standards for the percentage of calories from 

total fat or saturated fat. Lunches provided a mean of 32 percent of calories from total fat, and a 

mean of 12 percent of calories from saturated fat. About half the lunches met the standards for 

energy and the percentage of calories from total fat; however, fewer than half met the standard 

for the percentage of calories from saturated fat. Sources of fat and saturated fat at lunch 

included luncheon meats, hamburgers, pizza, cheeses, whole milk, and 2-percent milk. 

On average, SFSP lunches met the dietary cholesterol and fiber standards for both age 

groups, but not the standards for the percentage of calories from carbohydrate (a mean of 

52 percent of calories from carbohydrate). The mean sodium content (1,147 mg) was much 

higher than the recommended 800 mg or less of sodium at lunch. 

School- and Nonschool-Sponsored Lunches. Comparisons of the lunch meals provided by 

school and nonschool sponsors are found in Tables F.9, F.10, and F.11. Both school- and 

nonschool-sponsored lunches met the RDA standards for energy and for key nutrients (Table 

F.9). The lunches had similar distributions for energy and key nutrients (Table F.10 and 

Table F.11 for school and nonschool sponsors, respectively). About half the lunches served by 

both school sponsors and nonschool sponsors did not meet the energy standard, and about onefourth did not meet the saturated fat standard. 

Vended Lunches. A comparison of vended lunches (289 plates) and nonvended lunches 

(700 plates) showed that they had similar mean energy and nutrient profiles. Thus, separate data 

tables are not shown for vended and nonvended lunches. 

Supper. SFSP suppers provided an average of 783 calories, or 39 percent of the RDA for 

energy (Table V.14). The mean vitamin and mineral content of the foods exceeded the standard 

(one-third of the RDA) for all the key nutrients with the exception of calcium for the older age 

group (27 percent of its AI). It is likely that the finding on calcium reflects both a higher calcium 

standard for older children and beverage options in addition to or instead of milk in suppers 

provided by many residential camps in the sample. More than 75 percent of suppers met the 

RDA standard for energy. About 90 percent met the standards for protein, vitamins A and C, 

and iron.32

 32Sample sizes for supper were too small to report findings broken down by school- and 

nonschool-sponsored suppers. 
TABLE V.13 

MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED ON A SINGLE DAY AT LUNCH 

Nutrition Standarda Percentile 

 Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 

Energy (kcal) 663 (15.5) 667b 667b 467 546 648 749 856 

Protein (g) 26.5 (0.74) 9b 9b 18.4 21.6 24.8 30.3 37.8 Total Fat (% kcal) 32.1 (0.65) <30 <30 23.0 26.9 30.9 37.0 42.3 Saturated Fat (% kcal) 11.9 (0.40) <10 <10 7.3 9.3 11.6 14.1 16.9 Carbohydrate (% kcal) 52.1 (0.74) >55 >55 41.8 47.9 53.1 57.2 61.2 Vitamin A (RE) 379 (55.3) 133 200 134 169 224 307 1,003 Vitamin C (mg) 27 (2.8) 8 15 8 11 18 32 67 Calcium (mg) 448 (11.8) 267c 433c 343 369 436 517 598 Iron (mg) 4.0 (0.12) 3.3 2.7 2.5 3.2 3.7 4.8 5.4 

Sodium (mg) 1,147 (55.5) <800 <800 637 806 1,086 1,415 1,800 

Cholesterol (mg) 57 (3.4) <100 <100 22 37 50 73 95 Dietary Fiber (g) 5.5 (0.26) 3-4 4.5-6 2.8 4.0 5.1 6.8 8.6 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of lunches served nationally. Based on 989 plates observed at 161 sites. 

aOne-third of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for energy and nutrients; Dietary Guidelines for fat and saturated fat densities; National 

Research Council recommendation for carbohydrate density, sodium, and cholesterol; and American Health Foundation for fiber. School meal regulations are based on the 1989 RDAs and 1990 Dietary Guidelines. For purposes of this study, we used the updated Dietary Reference Intake RDAs for iron and vitamins A and C and the Adequate Intake (AI) for calcium. The AI is used as the recommended standard for calcium because an RDA is not available. 

bValue represents one-third of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. cValue represents one-third of the AI. 

SE = standard error. 

194 
195

TABLE V.14 

MEAN ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP SUPPERS 

AND COMPARISON WITH RDAsa 

Mean 

Standard 

Error 

Mean as Percentage 

of Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year Olds 

Mean as Percentage 

of Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year Olds 

Macronutrients 

Energy (kcal) 783 (62.1) 39b

 39b

Protein (g) 39.8 (4.63) 142b

 142b

Vitamins and Minerals 

Vitamin A (RE) 500 (171.5) 125c

 83c

Vitamin C (mg) 37 (12.8) 148 82 

Calcium (mg) 357 (55.5) 45d

 27d

Iron (mg) 5.1 (0.70) 51 64 

Sample Sizee 75 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of supper meals served nationally. 

a

School meal regulations are based on the 1989 RDAs and 1990 Dietary Guidelines. For purposes of 

this study, the updated Dietary Reference Intake RDAs for iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C and the 

Adequate Intake (AI) for calcium were used. The AI is used as the recommended standard for 

calcium because an RDA is not available. 

b

Value represents the comparison of the mean relative to the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 

years. 

c

Value represents the upper bound, as the mean is expressed as Retinol Equivalents (REs), and the 

RDA is expressed as Retinol Activity Equivalents. See Appendix E for a detailed discussion. 

d

Value represents the percentage of the AI. 

e

Total number of suppers observed at 12 sites. 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance. 
196

Means at supper did not meet the standards for fat, saturated fat, sodium, or dietary 

cholesterol and were higher than respective lunch means (Table V.15). Suppers provided a mean 

of 37 percent of calories from total fat, 13 percent of calories from saturated fat, and 1,394 mg of 

sodium. As with lunch, a higher percentage of calories from fat corresponded to a lower 

percentage of calories from carbohydrate, with the result that suppers did not meet the standard 

for carbohydrate density. The single-day distributions show that more than three-fourths of the 

suppers did not meet the standard for the percentage of calories from total fat. In addition, more 

than 90 percent of suppers did not meet the standard for sodium. On average, suppers did meet 

the nutrition standard for fiber. 

b. Other Nutrient Content of Meals Relative to the RDA Standards

The nutrient analysis in this study included a comparison of the content of SFSP meals 

relative to the RDAs for other nutrients not considered “key nutrients” under NSLP or SBP 

regulations. Although not mandated by USDA, the RDA standards are commonly used to assess 

the overall healthfulness of diets. Tables V.16, V.17, and V.18 show, for SFSP breakfasts, 

lunches, and suppers, respectively, the mean values for other vitamins and minerals relative to 

the RDAs. These nutrients include the B vitamins, vitamin E, phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, 

copper, potassium, and selenium. All the nutrients except potassium have established RDAs.

Breakfasts provided more than one-fourth of the RDA for all other vitamins and minerals 

shown with the exception of vitamin E. These meals provided 17 percent of the RDA for 

vitamin E for the younger age group, and 11 percent for the older age group. Lunches and 

suppers provided more than one-third of the RDA for all the nutrients shown with the exception 

of vitamin E for the older age group; vitamin E for that age group approached the standard (mean 

of 32 percent of the RDA). One-day distributions of these other vitamins and minerals are 

shown in Tables F.12, F.13, and F.14 for breakfast, lunch, and supper, respectively. 

c. Comparison with School Meals 

Key nutrient profiles for SFSP breakfasts and lunches were compared with those reported in 

the SNDA-II study for SBP and NSLP meals served during the 1998-1999 school year (Fox et al. 

2001). Table V.19 compares the SFSP data and the SNDA-II results for elementary schools. In 

general, breakfast profiles are similar for energy, protein, vitamin C, calcium, and iron. On 

average, SFSP breakfasts and SBP breakfasts provided 21 percent and 23 percent of the RDA for 

energy, respectively; both were slightly below the RDA standard of 25 percent. SFSP breakfasts 

had a higher mean vitamin A content than did SBP breakfasts; the reverse is true for lunches. On 

average, both SFSP breakfasts and SBP breakfasts met the recommendations for cholesterol and 

sodium. 

Nutrient profiles for SFSP lunches and school lunches are similar for energy and selected 

key nutrients. SFSP lunches provided 33 percent of the RDA for energy; NSLP lunches 

provided 35 percent. Notably, SFSP and NSLP lunches provided similar mean percentages of 

calories from fat (32 percent and 33 percent, respectively). Both types of lunches failed to meet 
TABLE V.15 

MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS 

SERVED ON A SINGLE DAY AT SUPPER 

Nutrition Standarda Percentile 

Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10thb 25th 50th 75th 90thb

Energy (kcal) 783 (62.1) 667c 667c 611 663 712 934 1,058 

Protein (g) 39.8 (4.63) 9c 9c 26.3 31.1 34.7 42.9 61.2 Total Fat (% kcal) 36.8 (2.74) <30 <30 27.4 31.2 37.1 43.5 46.0 

Saturated Fat (% kcal) 12.8 (1.64) <10 <10 7.3 8.7 13.7 16.7 17.1 Carbohydrate (% kcal) 43.2 (2.39) >55 >55 35.2 36.9 41.7 49.3 53.3 Vitamin A (RE) 500 (171.5) 133 200 138 210 339 493 620 Vitamin C (mg) 37 (12.8) 8 15 6 16 22 47 120 Calcium (mg) 357 (55.5) 267d 433d 88 171 348 489 633 

Iron (mg) 5.1 (0.70) 3.3 2.7 3.3 3.5 4.6 7.2 7.7 Sodium (mg) 1,394 (103.8) ≤800 ≤800 969 1,073 1,283 1,686 1,828 Cholesterol (mg) 128 (17.1) ≤100 ≤100 64 92 119 139 195 Dietary Fiber (g) 5.9 (1.02) 3-4 4.5-6 2.8 3.2 5.3 8.1 9.2 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of suppers served nationally. Based on 75 plates observed at 12 sites.

aOne-third of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for energy and nutrients; Dietary Guidelines for fat and saturated fat densities; National Research 

Council recommendation for carbohydrate density, sodium, and cholesterol; and American Health Foundation for fiber. School meal regulations are based on the 1989 RDAs and 1990 Dietary Guidelines. For purposes of this study, we used the updated Dietary Reference Intake RDAs for iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C, and the Adequate Intake (AI) for calcium. The AI is used as the recommended standard for calcium because an RDA is not available. 

bMay be unreliable due to small sample size. cValue represents one-third of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. dValue represents one-third of the AI. 

SE = standard error. 

197 
198 

TABLE V.16 

MEANS FOR OTHER NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP BREAKFASTS AND 

COMPARISON WITH RDAsa 

Vitamins and Minerals Mean 

Standard 

Error 

Mean as Percentage 

of Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year Olds 

Mean as Percentage 

of Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year Olds 

B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.47 (0.042) 78 52 

Riboflavin (mg) 0.80 (0.042) 133 89 

Niacin (mg) 4.18 (0.462) 52 35 

Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.48 (0.044) 80 48 

Folate (mcg) 100 (9.7) 50b

 33b

Vitamin B12 (mcg) 1.26 (0.074) 105 70 

Vitamin E (AE) 1.24 (0.173) 17 11 

Phosphorus (mg) 376 (14.6) 75 30 

Magnesium (mg) 68 (3.0) 52 28 

Zinc (mg) 2.79 (0.177) 56 35 

Copper (mg) 0.21 (0.022) 48 30 

Potassium (mg) 729 (36.5) n.a. n.a. 

Selenium (mcg) 19 (2.1) 63 48 

Sample Sizec 556 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfast plates served nationally. 

a

For the nutrients shown, the updated Dietary Reference Intake RDAs were used. 

b

Value represents the lower bound, as the mean is expressed as mcg of total folate, and the RDA is 

expressed as mcg of Dietary Folate Equivalents. See Appendix E for a detailed discussion. 

c

Total number of breakfast plates observed at 85 sites. 

n.a. = not applicable; RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance. 
199 

TABLE V.17 

MEANS FOR OTHER NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP LUNCHES 

AND COMPARISON WITH RDAsa 

Vitamins and Minerals Mean 

Standard 

Error 

Mean as Percentage 

of Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year Olds 

Mean as Percentage 

of Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year Olds 

B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.52 (0.021) 87 58 

Riboflavin (mg) 0.77 (0.018) 128 86 

Niacin (mg) 6.29 (0.302) 79 52 

Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.50 (0.025) 83 50 

Folate (mcg) 100 (3.7) 50b

 33b

Vitamin B12 (mcg) 1.55 (0.057) 129 86 

Vitamin E (AE) 2.80 (0.166) 40 25 

Phosphorus (mg) 499 (13.2) 100 40 

Magnesium (mg) 98 (3.0) 75 41 

Zinc (mg) 3.23 (0.097) 65 40 

Copper (mg) 0.39 (0.014) 89 56 

Potassium (mg) 1,008 (23.9) n.a. n.a. 

Selenium (mcg) 33 (1.6) 110 83 

Sample Sizec 989 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of lunch plates served nationally. 

a

For the nutrients shown, the updated Dietary Reference Intake RDAs were used. 

b

Value represents the lower bound, as the mean is expressed as mcg of total folate, and the RDA is 

expressed as mcg of Dietary Folate Equivalents. See Appendix E for a detailed discussion. 

c

Total number of lunch plates observed at 161 sites. 

n.a. = not applicable; RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance. 
200

TABLE V.18 

MEANS FOR OTHER NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP SUPPERS AND 

COMPARISON WITH RDAsa 

Vitamins and Minerals Mean 

Standard 

Error 

Mean as Percentage 

of Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year Olds 

Mean as Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year Olds 

 

B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.51 (0.042) 85 57 

Riboflavin (mg) 0.80 (0.017) 133 89 

Niacin (mg) 10.53 (1.415) 132 88 

Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.72 (0.083) 120 72 

Folate (mcg) 117 (11.8) 59b

 39b

Vitamin B12 (mcg) 1.63 (0.271) 136 91 

 

Vitamin E (AE) 3.54 (0.344) 51 32 

 

Phosphorus (mg) 535 (16.6) 107 43 

Magnesium (mg) 101 (11.2) 78 42 

 

Zinc (mg) 4.70 (0.651) 94 59 

Copper (mg) 0.44 (0.074) 100 63 

Potassium (mg) 1,115 (118.6) n.a. n.a. 

Selenium (mcg) 45 (6.0) 150 113 

Sample Sizec 75 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of supper plates served nationally. 

a

For the nutrients shown, the updated Dietary Reference Intake RDAs were used. 

b

Value represents the lower bound, as the mean is expressed as mcg of total folate, and the RDA is 

expressed as mcg of Dietary Folate Equivalents. See Appendix E for a detailed discussion. 

c

Total number of supper plates observed at 12 sites. 

n.a. = not applicable; RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance. 
TABLE V.19 

COMPARISON OF MEAN NUTRIENT PROFILES 

FOR SFSP MEALS AND SCHOOL MEALS 

 Breakfast Lunch 

Nutrient SFSP 

Standard 

Error SNDA-IIa 

Standard 

Error SFSP 

Standard 

Error SNDA-IIa

Standard 

Error 

Mean Amount 

Energy (kcal) 424 (28.3) 447 (5.7) 663 (15.5) 695 (6.9) Protein (g) 15 (1.0) 15 (0.2) 27 (0.7) 29 (0.2) Vitamin A (RE) 328 (26.8) 254 (4.4) 379 (55.3) 437 (15.7) Vitamin C (mg) 38 (5.0) 37 (1.1) 27 (2.8) 27 (1.3) Calcium (mg) 378 (13.1) 354 (4.5) 448 (11.8) 478 (4.0) Iron (mg) 4.2 (0.4) 3.8 (0.1) 4.0 (0.1) 4.4 (0.1) Cholesterol (mg) 53 (8.8) 43 (2.9) 57 (3.4) 65 (0.9) Sodium (mg) 537 (59.3) 574 (10.5) 1,147 (55.5) 1,259 (15.3) 

Mean Percentage of Calories from: 

Total fat 25.1 (1.5) 26.5 (0.4) 32.1 (0.6) 33.1 (0.3) Saturated fat 10.9 (0.4) 10.1 (0.2) 11.9 (0.4) 11.9 (0.1) Carbohydrate 60.7 (1.6) 61.5 (0.5) 52.1 (0.7) 51.4 (0.3) 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001); and Fox et al. (2001). 

NOTE: SFSP tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfast and lunch meals served nationally. 

aData are for elementary schools in school year 1998-1999. SFSP = Summer Food Service Program; SNDA-II = School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study II. 

201 
202

dietary recommendations of 30 percent of calories or less from fat and 55 percent of calories or 

more from carbohydrate. 

C. EXTENT OF PLATE WASTE 

Plate waste is defined as foods selected by or served to children and left on the plate at the 

end of the meal. It does not include leftover meals that were not served to children or food 

wasted during meal preparation. It also does not include food items that children may have left 

in a specially designated area, known as a share box. The extent of plate waste in the SFSP is 

important because (1) it affects the nutritional benefit that children obtain from SFSP meals, and 

(2) it affects sponsors’ costs and thus their ability to operate the SFSP cost-effectively. 

Although some wasted food on children’s plates is to be expected, many factors contribute 

to the amount of waste. Understanding the potential contributing factors can help menu planners 

to develop methods to reduce plate waste. Children’s preferences, as well as the texture, flavor, 

and serving temperature of the food can affect waste. In addition to leaving foods they dislike, 

children may refuse to eat unfamiliar foods. Specific forms of preparation or presentation, such 

as whether fresh fruits are cut up, may influence acceptability. Children also may be less likely 

to eat hot foods that have been allowed to become cold or cold foods that are too warm. The 

amount of time children have to eat, how hungry they are at meal time, the environment 

(including cleanliness, comfort, and air or room temperature), and the site staff’s interactions 

with the children are other factors that may influence plate waste. For example, interviewers 

reported that hot lunches were popular when served in air-conditioned rooms, but not when 

served outside on a hot day. Likewise, some cold items were too cold to eat. At some sites, for 

example, the milk and juice were frozen, and the turkey sandwiches were too cold to be eaten. 

Some fresh fruits were wasted because the fruit was unripe. 

The way in which the meal is served also affects plate waste. Specifically, whether children 

can choose to refuse one or two items (as in OVS schools), whether they can choose from a 

selection of foods (such as between two types of sandwiches), and whether they can ask for a 

particular portion size (as opposed to receiving prepackaged foods in fixed portions) affect 

plate waste. 

1. Nutrients Wasted on Plates 

Plate waste has been shown to vary by age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic group, and 

meal environment (Reger et al. 1996; Dillon and Lane 1989; Devaney et al. 1995; and Ohls et al. 

1988). In a study by Jansen and Harper (1978), high school students consistently wasted less 

food than did elementary school students. In a more recent study, by Reger et al. (1996), older 

elementary school students wasted more than did younger elementary school students. 

Tables V.20, V.21, and V.22 show, for breakfast, lunch, and supper, respectively, the mean 

energy and nutrients wasted, the mean energy and nutrients served (for comparison purposes), 

and the percentage of nutrients wasted. Plate waste includes only food items that were left on 

plates—it does not include food items that children may have placed in a share box; thus, actual 

plate waste may have been underestimated. 
203

TABLE V.20 

MEAN AND PERCENTAGE OF NUTRIENTS WASTED AT BREAKFAST, 

BASED ON PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONSa 

 Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Macronutrients 

Energy (kcal) 141 (13.8) 424 (28.3) 33 

Protein (g) 5.3 (0.58) 15.2 (1.02) 35 

Total Fat (g) 4.4 (0.62) 12.8 (1.36) 34 

Saturated fat (g) 1.9 (0.24) 5.3 (0.42) 36 

Monounsaturated fat (g) 1.5 (0.21) 4.5 (0.53) 33 

Polyunsaturated fat (g) 0.7 (0.15) 2.1 (0.42) 33 

Carbohydrate (g) 20.8 (2.01) 63.8 (4.10) 33 

Vitamins and Minerals 

Vitamin A (RE) 101 (10.4) 328 (26.8) 31 

B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.13 (0.016) 0.47 (0.042) 28 

Riboflavin (mg) 0.26 (0.024) 0.80 (0.042) 33 

Niacin (mg) 1.07 (0.172) 4.18 (0.462) 26 

Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.13 (0.017) 0.48 (0.044) 27 

Folate (mcg) 26 (3.9) 100 (9.7) 26 

Vitamin B12 (mcg) 0.45 (0.042) 1.26 (0.074) 36 

Vitamin C (mg) 11 (1.9) 38 (5.0) 29 

Vitamin E (AE) 0.45 (0.079) 1.24 (0.173) 36 

Calcium (mg) 141 (13.5) 378 (13.1) 37 

Phosphorus (mg) 134 (12.8) 376 (14.6) 36 

Magnesium (mg) 24 (2.2) 68 (3.0) 35 

Iron (mg) 1.1 (0.18) 4.2 (0.40) 26 
TABLE V.20 (continued) 

204

 Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Zinc (mg) 0.79 (0.084) 2.79 (0.177) 28 

Copper (mg) 0.07 (0.011) 0.21 (0.022) 33 

Potassium (mg) 266 (22.8) 729 (36.5) 36 

Selenium (mcg) 6 (0.9) 19 (2.1) 32 

Other Dietary Components 

Sodium (mg) 162 (23.7) 537 (59.3) 30 

Cholesterol (mg) 19 (4.3) 53 (8.8) 36 

Dietary Fiber (g) 0.8 (0.16) 2.4 (0.30) 33 

Sample Sizec

 815 — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfast meals nationally. 

a

Does not include waste from the share box items or discarded meals. 

b

Calculated as mean nutrient wasted divided by the mean nutrient served times 100. 

c

Total number of plates observed at 85 sites. 
205 

TABLE V.21 

MEAN AND PERCENTAGE OF NUTRIENTS WASTED AT LUNCH, 

BASED ON PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONSa 

 Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Macronutrients 

Energy (kcal) 210 (11.4) 663 (15.5) 32 

Protein (g) 8.0 (0.47) 26.5 (0.74) 30 

Total Fat (g) 7.7 (0.52) 24.8 (0.79) 31 

Saturated fat (g) 2.6 (0.16) 9.0 (0.34) 29 

Monounsaturated fat (g) 2.8 (0.20) 9.3 (0.36) 30 

Polyunsaturated fat (g) 1.6 (0.18) 4.7 (0.27) 34 

Carbohydrate (g) 28.6 (1.65) 87.3 (2.63) 33 

Vitamins and Minerals 

Vitamin A (RE) 200 (56.8) 379 (55.3) 53 

B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.17 (0.010) 0.52 (0.021) 33 

Riboflavin (mg) 0.23 (0.014) 0.77 (0.018) 30 

Niacin (mg) 1.97 (0.180) 6.29 (0.302) 31 

Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.15 (0.012) 0.50 (0.025) 30 

Folate (mcg) 34 (2.2) 100 (3.7) 34 

Vitamin B12 (mcg) 0.44 (0.034) 1.55 (0.057) 28 

Vitamin C (mg) 9 (1.0) 27 (2.8) 33 

Vitamin E (AE) 0.96 (0.089) 2.80 (0.166) 34 

Calcium (mg) 131 (8.8) 448 (11.8) 29 

Phosphorus (mg) 149 (8.3) 499 (13.2) 30 

Magnesium (mg) 30 (2.0) 98 (3.0) 31 

Iron (mg) 1.3 (0.08) 4.0 (0.12) 33 
TABLE V.21 (continued) 

206 

 Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Zinc (mg) 1.01 (0.063) 3.23 (0.097) 31 

Copper (mg) 0.13 (0.009) 0.39 (0.014) 33 

Potassium (mg) 316 (16.2) 1,008 (23.9) 31 

Selenium (mcg) 11 (0.8) 33 (1.6) 33 

Other Dietary 

Components 

Sodium (mg) 372 (25.7) 1,147 (55.5) 32 

Cholesterol (mg) 16 (1.5) 57 (3.4) 28 

Dietary Fiber (g) 2.1 (0.15) 5.5 (0.26) 38 

Sample Sizec

 1,570 — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of lunch meals nationally. 

a

Does not include waste from the share box items or discarded meals. 

b

Calculated as mean nutrient wasted divided by the mean nutrient served times 100. 

c

Total number of plates observed at 161 sites. 
207 

TABLE V.22 

MEAN AND PERCENTAGE OF NUTRIENTS WASTED AT SUPPER, 

BASED ON PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONSa

 Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Macronutrients 

Energy (kcal) 165 (31.6) 783 (62.1) 21 

Protein (g) 8.4 (1.76) 39.8 (4.63) 21 

Total Fat (g) 7.2 (1.47) 31.7 (1.70) 23 

Saturated fat (g) 2.8 (0.63) 10.8 (0.78) 26 

Monounsaturated fat (g) 2.5 (0.47) 12.2 (1.07) 20 

Polyunsaturated fat (g) 1.3 (0.32) 6.0 (0.99) 22 

Carbohydrate (g) 17.2 (3.03) 86.1 (10.55) 20 

Vitamins and Minerals 

Vitamin A (RE) 123 (22.7) 500 (171.5) 25 

B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.11 (0.019) 0.51 (0.042) 22 

Riboflavin (mg) 0.21 (0.044) 0.80 (0.017) 26 

Niacin (mg) 1.92 (0.440) 10.53 (1.415) 18 

Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.16 (0.030) 0.72 (0.083) 22 

Folate (mcg) 24 (5.1) 117 (11.8) 21 

Vitamin B12 (mcg) 0.50 (0.155) 1.63 (0.271) 31 

Vitamin C (mg) 9 (2.1) 37 (12.8) 24 

Vitamin E (AE) 0.87 (0.180) 3.54 (0.344) 25 

Calcium (mg) 119 (39.7) 357 (55.5) 33 

Phosphorus (mg) 133 (29.3) 535 (16.6) 25 

Magnesium (mg) 25 (3.9) 101 (11.2) 25 

Iron (mg) 1.1 (0.22) 5.1 (0.70) 22 
TABLE V.22 (continued) 

208 

 Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Zinc (mg) 1.17 (0.272) 4.70 (0.651) 25 

Copper (mg) 0.10 (0.022) 0.44 (0.074) 23 

Potassium (mg) 294 (44.3) 1,115 (118.6) 26 

Selenium (mcg) 9 (1.8) 45 (6.0) 20 

Other Dietary Components 

Sodium (mg) 336 (69.2) 1,394 (103.8) 24 

Cholesterol (mg) 25 (4.0) 128 (17.1) 20 

Dietary Fiber (g) 1.4 (0.33) 5.9 (1.02) 24 

Sample Sizec

 119 — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of supper meals nationally. 

a

Does not include waste from the share box items or discarded meals. 

b

Calculated as mean nutrient wasted divided by the mean nutrient served times 100. 

c

Total number of plates observed at 12 sites. 

SFSP = Summer Food Service Program. 
209

On average, children wasted about one-third of energy and nutrients at breakfast and at 

lunch, with the percentage of waste for most nutrients falling in the range of 30 to 36 percent. 

Mean nutrients wasted at breakfast ranged from 26 percent for niacin, folate, and iron to 

37 percent for calcium. Mean nutrients wasted at lunch ranged from 28 percent for vitamin B12 

and cholesterol to 53 percent for vitamin A. 

On average, children wasted fewer nutrients at supper than at breakfast or lunch, probably 

because suppers were served primarily at residential camps attended by older, active children. 

An average of about 20 percent of energy was wasted at supper; the mean percentage of nutrients 

wasted ranged from 18 percent (for niacin) to 33 percent (for calcium), with most waste falling 

in the range of 20 to 26 percent. 

Compared with these findings, two studies of plate waste in the NSLP found that lower 

levels of nutrients were wasted; however, the setting and methods in those studies and in the 

current study differed. The 1992 School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I) 

estimated that about 12 percent of the calories students selected as part of school lunches were 

wasted, with waste of individual nutrients ranging from 10 to 15 percent (Devaney et al. 1995). 

However, waste was assessed in a very different manner than in the current study; it was based 

on students’ answers to questions about incompletely consumed foods at school, rather than on 

direct observation or measurement, as in the current study. 

At breakfast, average waste of energy and nutrients generally was lower at nonschoolsponsored sites than at school-sponsored sites (Table F.15 and Table F.16, respectively). At 

lunch, however, similar patterns of average nutrient waste were observed at school- and 

nonschool-sponsored sites (Table F.17 and Table F.18, respectively). 

Sites sponsored by schools may use the OVS option. The intent of this option is to reduce 

plate waste; however, we did not observe significantly less plate waste at OVS sites than at 

non-OVS school-sponsored sites. Several factors may explain why the interviewers did not 

observe less plate waste at school-sponsored OVS sites than at non-OVS school-sponsored sites: 

• Only 42 of 78 SFA-sponsored sites visited had sponsors that claimed to use OVS. It 

often was difficult to ascertain whether a site was using OVS. Many site staff were 

unfamiliar with the terms “OVS” and “offer versus serve,” so interviewers could not 

ask whether OVS was used. The method for identifying an OVS site used here is 

based on whether the sponsor was an SFA, and whether the sponsor reported using 

OVS. However, sponsors may not have used OVS at some of their sites. 

• The presence of interviewers on site may have affected normal procedures; some site 

staff who normally allowed children to refuse one or two food items at an OVS lunch 

may have insisted that children take all the items.33

 33Interviewers at several sites reported their impressions that staff had urged the children to 

take more than their normal amount of food. 
210

2. Foods Wasted on Plates 

Expressing plate waste as a percentage of energy or other nutrients provides a measure of 

the overall extent of waste. To determine which foods contributed to the waste of nutrients, the 

study calculated the percentage of the most commonly served foods wasted (based on weight, in 

grams) and the percentage of foods in each major food category wasted; these calculations were 

made for breakfast and for lunch. (Sample sizes at supper were too small to produce reliable 

estimates.) 

Eleven percent of breakfast plates had no waste (Table V.23). The percentage of waste in 

the different food categories varied somewhat but generally was less than one-third. Waste 

ranged from approximately 27 percent for the meat/meat alternate and mixed dish categories to 

38 percent for the milk category. With the exception of 1-percent chocolate milk, children 

wasted about one-third of milk, regardless of type, which explains the 37 percent of calcium 

wasted at breakfast. Table V.23 also highlights some foods that were popular with children, and 

some that were less popular. For example, children wasted only 18 percent of their cereal, and 

only 21 percent of their doughnuts. However, they wasted 57 percent of graham or animal 

crackers and 53 percent of applesauce. 

At lunch, as at breakfast, 11 percent of plates contained no waste (Table V.24). The 

percentage of foods wasted, by food category, ranged from about 30 percent (milk) to about 

48 percent (vegetables), indicating higher waste among some food categories at lunch than at 

breakfast. (The “other beverage” category had only 10 percent waste.) On average, children 

wasted about 30 percent of their milk at lunch, and they wasted less chocolate milk than white 

milk. In the dairy category, they wasted more processed cheese than natural cheese. More than 

40 percent of the following commonly served fruits were wasted: cooked or canned peaches; 

cooked, canned, or fresh apples; applesauce; canned pineapple; and grape juice. Possible 

explanations for fruit waste include serving fruit that was unripe, or that would have been more 

appealing if it had been peeled or sliced first. Commonly served vegetables with more than 

40 percent waste were raw carrots, lettuce, tomatoes, and salad with assorted vegetables. Among 

commonly served breads, about 40 percent of white bread and rolls were wasted. Within the 

meat/meat alternate category, luncheon meat and bologna had the highest mean waste 

(43 percent and 39 percent, respectively). 

Other studies provide some context on foods wasted by children in the SFSP and the NSLP. 

The previous national study of the SFSP, by Ohls et al. (1988), measured plate waste at lunch 

and found that 20 to 36 percent of food was wasted in the four key food groups (milk, meat, 

bread, and fruits/vegetables). Milk was wasted most often, followed by fruits/vegetables, meat, 

and bread. In the study of plate waste in the NSLP by Reger et al. (1996), salad accounted for 

the highest mean percentage of plate waste (63 percent), followed by vegetables other than 

potatoes (54 percent), and by 1-percent chocolate milk (48 percent) and whole white milk 

(48 percent). The mean percentage of plate waste of the remaining items ranged from 17 percent 

(dessert) to 37 percent (potatoes). An important difference between the current study and the 

NSLP study was that the latter was conducted at a school using OVS. 

The range of plate waste among specific foods or food groups presented here is similar to 

the ranges found in the studies by Ohls et al. and Reger et al. For example, children wasted 
211 

TABLE V.23 

PERCENTAGE OF MOST COMMONLY SERVED BREAKFAST FOODS WASTED, 

BY FOOD CATEGORY 

Food Category 

Percentage of 

All Plates 

Containing 

Food 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Each Food 

Wasted 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Each Food 

Category 

Wasted 

Standard 

Error 

Milk 37.6 (2.55) 

2-percent white milk 31.8 (10.93) 35.1 (4.34) 

Whole white milk 28.8 (7.98) 37.2 (3.59) 

1-percent white milk 16.8 (4.48) 31.1 (5.02) 

1-percent chocolate milk 14.2 (6.21) 53.6 (11.96) 

Dairya 30.1 (4.52) 

Yogurt 7.4 (5.61) 26.9 (4.03) 

Processed cheese 6.9 (4.30) 35.2 (7.53) 

Fruit 31.0 (2.92) 

Orange juice 39.8 (9.28) 22.8 (4.12) 

Apple juice 20.4 (7.16) 25.3 (6.99) 

100-percent fruit juice 

blend 8.1 (3.74) 28.2 (5.33) 

Nectarine 5.6b (5.40b

) 88.8b (0.00b) 

Applesauce, apples 

(cooked or canned) 5.3 (2.56) 52.6 (12.16) 

Vegetable 30.2 (3.97) 

Bread/Bread Alternate 29.9 (3.26) 

Cereal 54.8 (9.18) 18.2 (3.44) 

White bread 11.7 (5.38) 31.1 (2.65) 

Dark bread (whole wheat, 

rye, bran) 9.1 (7.58) 25.1 (4.65) 

Sweet roll, breakfast tart, 

coffee cake, funnel 

cake, churro 8.0 (5.87) 22.9 (6.97) 

Doughnut 5.7 (3.21) 20.9 (3.09) 

Crackers (animal, graham) 5.1 (3.40) 57.4 (8.06) 

Meat/Meat Alternatec

 26.6 (4.10) 

Eggs 7.7 (3.26) 30.4 (5.53) 

Mixed Dishd

 27.2 (7.75) 

Other Beveragee

 28.9 (2.55) 

Plates with No Waste 11.2 (2.18) 

Sample Sizef 556 — 815 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 
TABLE V.23 (continued) 

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

212 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfast meals nationally. 

a

Excludes milk. Dairy items are considered meat alternates. 

b

Estimates may be unreliable due to small sample size. 

c

The meat/meat alternate is not a requirement at breakfast. 

d

May include combinations of meat, dairy, bread, and vegetable items. Items counted as part of mixed dishes are not 

counted in these separate categories. 

e

Other beverages include soft drinks, iced tea, and fruit-juice drinks, which contain less than 100-percent fruit juice. 

f

Represents total number of plates observed at breakfast. 
213 

TABLE V.24 

PERCENTAGE OF MOST COMMONLY SERVED LUNCH FOODS WASTED, 

BY FOOD CATEGORY 

Food Category 

Percentage of 

All Plates 

Containing 

Food 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Each Food 

Wasted 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Each Food 

Category 

Wasted 

Standard 

Error 

Milk 29.6 (3.19) 

1-percent chocolate milk 37.2 (5.88) 29.5 (3.07) 

2-percent white milk 14.5 (4.36) 34.6 (9.36) 

Whole white milk 14.2 (2.87) 22.0 (6.57) 

2-percent chocolate milk 12.8 (5.25) 19.4 (2.85) 

1-percent white milk 9.3 (2.49) 24.7 (5.28) 

Skim chocolate milk 5.9 (3.49) 23.3 (2.68) 

Dairya

 45.4 (7.38) 

Processed cheese 18.7 (4.21) 36.8 (3.23) 

Natural cheese 8.0 (3.08) 24.8 (6.86) 

Fruit 37.2 (3.63) 

Peaches (cooked or 

canned) 13.4 (4.20) 55.5 (13.27) 

Apple juice 10.2 (3.39) 32.6 (9.74) 

Cantaloupe, honeydew, 

watermelon 10.0 (4.51) 28.9 (6.45) 

Orange (raw) 9.7 (4.02) 33.8 (5.38) 

Applesauce, apples 

(cooked or canned) 8.5 (2.45) 42.2 (4.38) 

Apple (raw) 8.2 (3.59) 47.6 (12.57) 

Banana (raw) 7.8 (3.37) 35.5 (9.82) 

100-percent fruit juice 

blend 7.7 (3.10) 20.1 (8.21) 

Pineapples (canned) 7.0 (2.66) 44.9 (8.79) 

Fruit cocktail 6.9 (2.81) 32.2 (5.75) 

Grape juice 5.9 (2.39) 61.7 (30.0) 

Pears (cooked or canned) 5.7 (2.09) 34.4 (7.30) 

Vegetable 48.3 (4.49) 

French fries 10.3 (4.24) 18.9 (2.31) 

Carrots (raw) 9.6 (3.25) 73.1 (14.39) 

Corn 9.5 (3.30) 36.1 (5.07) 

Lettuce (raw) 8.1 (2.46) 47.9 (5.45) 

Tomatoes (raw) 7.4 (2.35) 57.0 (5.32) 

Salad with assorted 

vegetables 5.7 (3.18) 65.8 (10.83) 

Pickles 5.7 (2.11) 33.0 (6.93) 

Bread/Bread Alternate 38.6 (2.99) 

Rolls (white, egg, 

hoagie) 28.6 (4.57) 41.4 (4.62) 

White bread 20.7 (5.93) 40.0 (4.89) 
TABLE V.24 (continued) 

214 

Food Category 

Percentage of 

All Plates 

Containing 

Food 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Each Food 

Wasted 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage of 

Each Food 

Category 

Wasted 

Standard 

Error 

Dark bread (whole 

wheat, rye, bran) 11.8 (3.56) 30.3 (7.24) 

Crackers (animal, 

graham) 11.3 (3.95) 36.7 (8.36) 

Cookies 9.8 (2.65) 18.7 (4.10) 

Salty snacks 6.2 (2.94) 20.8 (7.35) 

Meat/Meat Alternate 35.7 (5.87) 

Luncheon meat 18.6 (4.01) 42.5 (6.07) 

Bologna 8.6 (2.86) 39.3 (6.54) 

Peanut butter 6.3 (1.93) 15.6 (11.11) 

Ground beef 5.5 (2.22) 24.2 (4.62) 

Mixed Dishb

 31.6 (2.75) 

Pizza 15.7 (4.49) 32.8 (7.15) 

Other Beveragec

 10.0 (4.58) 

Plates with No Waste 10.6 (1.45) 

Sample Sized 989 — 1,570 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of lunches nationally. 

a

Excludes milk. Dairy items are considered meat alternates. 

b

May include combinations of meat, dairy, bread, and vegetable items. Items counted as part of mixed dishes are not 

counted in these separate categories. 

c

Other beverages include soft drinks, iced tea, and fruit-juice drinks, which contain less than 100-percent fruit juice. 

d

Represents total number of plates observed at lunch. 
215

about 66 percent of the salad served in SFSP lunches, compared with 63 percent of salad in 

NSLP lunches. When vegetables (including potatoes) were served in SFSP lunches, about 

48 percent remained on the plate as waste. Although children wasted less than 30 percent of the 

1-percent chocolate milk served at SFSP lunches, nearly 54 percent of it was wasted at breakfast, 

which was slightly higher than the percentage of waste reported by Reger et al. In addition, the 

amount of SFSP whole white milk wasted at breakfast and at lunch (22 percent and 37 percent, 

respectively) was less than the amount reported by Reger et al. (48 percent). 

The extent of plate waste for specific foods generally is not what would be expected based 

on site supervisors’ views about the children’s most liked and least liked foods. Based on site 

supervisors’ reports, one would expect children to waste more dark bread (whole wheat, rye, or 

bran) than white bread, yet the converse was true (31 versus 25 percent at breakfast). However, 

almost 40 percent of bologna was wasted, which is consistent with the staff’s ranking of bologna 

as the meat “liked the least.” Although the staff ranked canned peaches second among the mostliked fruits, children wasted an above-average amount (almost 56 percent). Conversely, fruit 

juice blend, with a below-average waste (20 percent) was not on the staff’s list of popular fruits. 

Raw carrots, with a plate waste of 73 percent, ranked first among the vegetables with higherthan-average waste and ranked first on the list of most-liked vegetables. One explanation for 

these discrepancies is that serving sizes may provide more food than some children are able to 

eat during a meal. It is also possible that the distribution of waste provides a different picture of 

plate waste than does an examination of mean waste across sites; foods that are well-liked in 

some places, but disliked in others, may have average levels of waste overall. 

Food waste and, therefore, nutrient waste generally was lower at supper than at breakfast or 

lunch. Suppers were served primarily at camps, and children attending camps generally were 

older and more active throughout the day than were children attending other types of sites. 

Twelve percent of supper plates had no waste. With the category “other beverages” excluded, 

waste among food categories ranged from 12 percent for fruit to 44 percent for milk. The 

meat/meat alternate category had mean waste of 21 percent, and the vegetable category had 

mean waste of 30 percent. 

3. Reasons for Food Waste 

During their interview, site supervisors were asked to provide explanations for waste in 

general at their sites, including plate waste and other types of waste. Only about 3 percent of site 

supervisors stated that food was never wasted. The main explanation for food waste was that 

children did not like the food (68 percent). Approximately 17 percent of site supervisors 

reported that fluctuations in attendance was the main reason that their site had food waste; 

6 percent reported that bad weather (leading some children to stay home) was the main reason. 

Both of these responses suggest that most of these sites’ waste was in the form of leftover meals, 

rather than plate waste. A small percentage of site supervisors (fewer than 5 percent) reported 

other reasons, such as children being served more food than they could eat (plate waste), and 

insufficient on-site storage space (other waste). In addition, interviewers observed that young 

children did not always have enough time to finish their meals, which might explain some of the 

plate waste among this group of program participants. 

217

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) provided approximately 130 million meals to 

children in 2001 through more than 4,000 local sponsors and more than 35,000 sites. The 

program almost always operates in conjunction with other activities. Therefore, in addition to 

providing meals, it helps to sustain summer programs that promote physical activity and foster 

children’s social and educational development. The last major study described the 1986 SFSP 

(Ohls et al. 1988). Since then, the number of sponsors, number of sites, and average daily 

attendance have grown considerably. SFSP sites also are now more likely to serve breakfast as 

well as lunch, and to stay open for longer than 6 weeks.1

 As shown in Chapter I, however, SFSP 

participation (as measured by average daily attendance in July) has leveled off since 1994; in 

2001, the number of children receiving SFSP meals in July was 14 percent of the number of 

children receiving free or reduced-price school meals during the school year. 

This study has considered three research questions concerning the SFSP: 

1. How does the SFSP operate at the state, sponsor, and site levels? Is the program 

operating as intended by current policy and regulations? What areas do staff believe 

are in need of improvement? 

2. What factors affect the participation of sponsors and children? What barriers to 

participation do program staff believe are the most important? What are program 

staff doing to expand participation? What is the level of entry and exit of program 

sponsors? Why do some sponsors leave the program, and how do their characteristics 

compare with those of sponsors overall? 

3. What is the nutritional quality of meals served, and what is the extent of plate 

waste? How are SFSP meals prepared and served? What are the foods served and 

portion sizes? How does the nutritional content of SFSP meals compare with 

standards for good nutrition? What factors are associated with more-nutritious meals 

and less waste? 

This chapter considers, for each of the three research questions, key findings and issues for 

future research and policy development. 

A. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 

To safeguard program integrity and meal quality, SFSP regulations require careful 

documentation for sponsor applications and claims, extensive monitoring of site operations by 

state agencies and sponsors, and adherence to highly detailed operating procedures. However, 

 1

See Tables II.5 and II.9. 
218

the state and sponsor staff interviewed for this study often perceived the detailed program rules 

and the complex reimbursement procedures as burdensome; some of these staff felt that the rules 

might discourage program growth. 

1. Key Findings 

• State administrators and some sponsors consider the application process for SFSP 

sponsorship to be demanding. Some state administrators (about 40 percent) reported 

that they did not have sufficient staff to process applications; more than 80 percent of 

state administrators reported that they often assisted sponsors with the process (as 

opposed to sometimes or rarely assisting sponsors). Sponsors who had suggestions 

for improving the application process (about 25 percent of all sponsors) most often 

suggested reducing the overall level of paperwork required; others suggested 

dropping specific requirements.2

 Forty-six percent of state administrators reported 

that, of all the topics covered in training and thereafter, new sponsors had the greatest 

difficulty with preparation of the budgets that are required as part of applications; 

28 percent mentioned the application process overall as most difficult for sponsors.3

 

Most state administrators felt that recent changes in application procedures had 

not helped. 

• State administrators and sponsors reported undertaking monitoring activities that 

largely are consistent with the monitoring required by SFSP regulations. The state 

agencies reported reviewing more than 90 percent of new sponsors in 2001 

(somewhat less than the required 100 percent), and about 60 percent of experienced 

sponsors (monitoring of at least one-third is required); they visited an average of 

30 percent of the sites. More than 80 percent of sponsors reported that they 

monitored all sites at least twice, and nearly three-quarters reported that their visits 

always were unannounced. 

• About 70 percent of sponsors expected that SFSP reimbursements would not cover 

all their costs. Most reported that reimbursements would cover at least 75 percent of 

their costs, however. Those who did not expect all costs to be covered most often 

expected to use their own funds to fill the gap; some expected to use funding from 

their parent organizations or other state or federal programs. About 75 percent of 

sponsors who had operated in previous years reported that they had instituted 

program changes in the past few years to control costs, such as reducing staff hours or 

meal costs. 

 2

Although only 25 percent of sponsors provided comments on the application process, the 

comments were in response to an open-ended question on a mail survey. Respondents to such 

questions tend to be those with a relatively high level of concern. 

3

As multiple responses were allowed, these groups may overlap (see Table III.15). 
219

• Eighteen percent of sponsors (serving 30 percent of meals) obtained meals from a 

vendor. Although sponsors using vendors had some concerns about the quality of 

food the vendors provided and monitored them closely, about 80 percent were 

satisfied with the vendors’ performance. About one-third of vended sponsors used 

School Food Authorities (SFAs) as their vendors. 

2. Issues for the Future 

Many state administrators and sponsors suggested that changes in paperwork or other 

requirements and/or in the reimbursement process could improve the SFSP and help the program 

to attract sponsors.4 At the same time, requirements for the SFSP have specific functions. (For 

example, requirements to specify serving times and the dates of field trips at each site, which are 

time- and paperwork-intensive for sponsor and state staff, are intended to ensure that state 

monitors know when to arrive and what to verify when visiting sites.) It may be possible to 

develop creative approaches to simplifying these procedures while maintaining their basic role in 

ensuring program integrity. In some instances, it may be worth reviewing whether the costs of 

the provisions outweigh their benefits. If detailed requirements are reduced, strong monitoring 

programs may increase in importance. 

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has introduced changes to 

simplify the application process and has reduced monitoring requirements. In 2001, the agency 

began experimenting with several approaches to simplifying the program. Specifically, the 

14-state pilot project, discussed in detail in Chapter I, allows sponsors to combine administrative 

and operating costs, and to be reimbursed at the maximum rate. The “Seamless Summer”

waivers allow SFAs to run open sites under National School Lunch Program (NSLP) rules, while 

receiving the lower NSLP free meal reimbursement rate. Studies of these initiatives will help to 

assess whether the approaches should be adopted more widely. 

One possible way to further simplify the SFSP sponsor application process (and, possibly, 

other types of paperwork, such as claims) would be to make better use of technology. For 

example, some state agencies and sponsors suggested making more use of electronic application 

forms that could be updated easily from year to year, or as items change during the year. 

Improving technology requires an upfront investment of resources, but in the long term, it may 

make the program simpler to operate without reducing accountability. 

Dropping the requirement to prepare detailed administrative and operating budgets, 

particularly in the context of the 14-state pilot project, in which sponsors are paid fixed rates per 

meal, would simplify the application process further. However, state agencies use review of 

sponsors’ budgets to assess the administrative capacity of the sponsors. This year, USDA is 

 4

For example, in response to an open-ended question asking for comments about the 

program, 26 percent of state administrators commented in general terms that paperwork or 

requirements should be reduced; others suggested simplifying specific rules or procedures. 
220

allowing school sponsors that are part of the 14-state pilot program to drop the budget from their 

applications. 

Some states have adopted other approaches to help new or smaller organizations 

(particularly nonprofit organizations) feed children during the summer, while reducing their 

administrative responsibilities. For example, they may encourage these organizations to become 

sites for school sponsors in their areas (rather than serve as sponsors themselves), or, if local 

SFAs are not willing to become sponsors, encourage them to use SFAs as vendors. 

B. PARTICIPATION 

Despite the efforts of USDA, state agencies, and advocates to expand SFSP participation, 

the program has not grown in recent years. This study sought to understand the factors affecting 

participation of sponsors and children. 

1. Key Findings 

• All state agencies reported conducting outreach to attract new sponsors, and most 

sponsors (71 percent) reported making efforts to increase participation. Despite 

these efforts, about 40 percent of state agencies reported having inadequate staff time 

for outreach. However, state agencies worked closely with partner organizations, 

particularly nutrition or antihunger advocates, to recruit sponsors. Sponsors also 

worked extensively with partners. 

• More state administrators (33 percent) mentioned one-on-one meetings than any 

other approach as the most successful approach for recruiting new sponsors. State 

administrators believed the complexities of administering the SFSP and sponsors’

difficulty covering their costs are major reasons why recruiting is challenging; oneon-one meetings are useful in addressing these issues. Outreach to schools was the 

second most commonly mentioned successful approach (mentioned by 24 percent of 

state administrators). 

• Staff at all levels most frequently cited lack of transportation as a barrier to 

children’s participation. About one-third of programs offered transportation to at 

least some children. 

• Sponsors generally were not interested in opening more sites, either because they 

felt their area was well-covered or because they were single-site programs; most site 

supervisors reported that they had the capacity to serve additional children at their 

sites. It is not possible to determine whether the excess capacity existed because sites 

were meeting demand, or because inadequate publicity or family barriers prevented 

some children from attending. 
221

• New sponsors were more likely than continuing sponsors to be private nonprofit 

organizations; about half of all new sponsors were school sponsors and one-third 

were nonprofit organizations. New sponsors also were smaller than continuing 

sponsors.5

• Sponsors that left the program were diverse, but they were more likely than 

continuing sponsors to be small, to be new, and to be private nonprofit sponsors. 

Sponsors that left most often cited paperwork and inadequate reimbursements as 

reasons, with about 45 percent mentioning each reason. Forty percent found that 

demand was insufficient to sustain the program. 

2. Issues for the Future 

Free or reduced-price participation in the NSLP has been used as a benchmark for what 

SFSP participation should be. Under the current eligibility rules for the two programs, however, 

it is not reasonable to expect the SFSP to serve as many children as are served by the free and 

reduced-price components of the NSLP. In particular, the following differences between the 

SFSP and the NSLP affect children’s participation: (1) the SFSP is available primarily in areas 

with high concentrations of low-income children, which qualify for open sites, whereas the 

NSLP is available in schools nationwide; (2) participation in programs associated with the SFSP 

is voluntary, whereas children generally must attend school and thus are on the site at which the 

NSLP is offered; and (3) schools must offer transportation to children who do not live within 

walking distance, whereas only one-third of SFSP sites offer transportation. The Economic 

Research Service (ERS) is building a Web site based on sponsor and site data collected during 

this study (described in Section B.3) that may help to determine a more realistic goal for SFSP 

participation levels by permitting an assessment of the number of children living in areas eligible 

for open sites. 

Nonetheless, the Food and Nutrition Service has expressed its commitment to expanding the 

SFSP by recruiting more sponsors and sites and by expanding participation at existing sites. 

Because lack of staff or funding sometimes constrains SFSP outreach, some state administrators 

suggested awarding grants to states and/or sponsors targeted specifically to outreach activities or 

funding a national media campaign. These programs could then be evaluated in order to 

determine which approaches are most promising. 

At the same time, the feedback received from state agencies and sponsors during this study 

suggests that outreach is not enough to recruit more new sponsors. Simplifying administrative 

rules also may be very important to achieving this goal. The recent initiatives to simplify the 

SFSP, discussed in Section A, also are intended to increase children’s access to summer meals, 

and evaluations will consider the programs’ effects on participation. Meals served in the 

“Seamless Summer” initiative are counted as NSLP meals, rather than as SFSP meals; thus, 

effects on the number of meals served by both programs during the summer must be assessed. 

 5

New sponsors are defined as sponsors that operated in 2001 but not in 2000. Some new 

sponsors may have participated before 2000. 
222

In considering how to improve outreach activities, it is important to determine where to 

focus on recruiting new sponsors in uncovered areas, and where to focus when seeking to 

increase participation at sites operated by existing sponsors. Many state agencies already target 

outreach to school districts that would qualify for open sites, but that do not currently participate. 

As discussed in Section B.3, the Web site tools that ERS is developing will enable users to link 

site locations and participation data to census poverty data, thereby identifying areas eligible for 

open sites that lack sponsors or sites. The Web site also will enable users to assess whether areas 

served by current sponsors are well covered, and whether sponsors have failed to reach large 

proportions of children in their areas. This information can serve as feedback to sponsors on the 

success of their outreach efforts. As a way of removing some of the barriers to participation at 

current sites, some state administrators suggested providing targeted grants to sponsors, to help 

the sponsors offer transportation. 

Finally, information from this study suggests that new sponsors are at higher risk of leaving 

the program than are more experienced ones. Thus, even though states already focus much of 

their training, technical assistance, and monitoring on new sponsors, it may be worthwhile to 

review these procedures. 

3. Future Research 

As a follow-up to this study, ERS is developing an interactive Web site, which will allow 

states, sponsors, and advocacy groups to use geographic information systems (GIS) software and 

data to analyze SFSP accessibility and coverage. This user-friendly tool will be based in part on 

the 2001 SFSP Sponsor-Site Database prepared during this study.6

 In this database, addresses 

for all 2001 SFSP sponsors and sites have been coded with geographic information, such as 

latitude, longitude, and census tract number. The database will be linked to Census 2000 data on 

small geographic areas, and to school census data from the Common Core of school data. This 

information, combined with special GIS software, will allow SFSP sponsor and site addresses to 

be placed on maps, and to be linked to census data on their surrounding neighborhoods. 

The goals for the Web site are to: 

• Visually display SFSP sponsors and sites in geographic relation to concentrated areas 

of child poverty 

• Provide information in tabular format to permit methodical examination of results 

• Profile SFSP sites by detailing demographic characteristics of the census tract in 

which they are located 

 6

This database is discussed in detail in Appendix A and was the source for some of the 

tabulations in Chapter II. 
223

Analysis using these tools could answer such key questions as: 

• What proportion of local areas that are qualified to have an SFSP site do not have any 

sites? 

• How many children from low-income families live in areas that are not eligible for 

SFSP sites? 

States, sponsors, and advocacy groups could use this type of information to identify eligible 

areas and underserved areas. It also might be used to assess the effects of the current 

area-eligibility cutoff, and the possible implications of changes in the cutoff. If changing the 

cutoff is not of interest, the information could help to set a realistic target for the number of 

children that the program potentially could reach. 

C. MEAL SERVICE 

SFSP sponsors have a responsibility to provide nutritious meals to low-income children 

during the summer. Overall, this study’s findings suggest that sponsors serve a wide range of 

foods across sites in meals that, on average, meet current Recommended Dietary Allowance 

(RDA) standards for most nutrients. However, there is room for improvement in (1) nonschool 

sponsors’ compliance with meal pattern requirements;7

 (2) meeting nutrition standards for health 

promotion and disease prevention (for example, by providing lower-saturated-fat and lowersodium food options); and (3) reducing plate waste. The SFSP faces significant opportunities 

and challenges in helping sponsors and site staff to address these issues. Possible approaches 

include additional training, better guidance materials, and incorporation of additional nutrition 

education into staff training and guidance materials. The SFSP also offers an environment for 

providing nutrition education messages about healthy eating behaviors to participating children. 

1. Key Findings

• On average, SFSP meals provided at least one-quarter of the RDAs for most key 

nutrients at breakfast, and at least one-third of the RDAs for energy and key 

nutrients at lunch and supper.8

 Breakfasts fell slightly below the standard for 

energy, providing an average of 21 percent of the RDA. 

• On average, SFSP meals did not meet nutrition standards for the percentage of 

calories from total fat or from saturated fat, with the exception of total fat at 

breakfast. Breakfast and lunch provided 27 percent and 30 percent of calories from 

 7

This study did not assess school sponsors’ compliance with menu planning requirements. 

See Chapter V for further discussion of this issue. 

8

Key nutrients besides energy are vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, and calcium. 
224

total fat, respectively; the standard is no more than 30 percent of calories from total 

fat. Breakfast provided 11 percent of calories from saturated fat, and lunch provided 

12 percent; the standard is less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat. The 

average fat content and the average saturated fat content of SFSP meals were similar 

to those reported for school breakfasts and school lunches in 1998-1999 in the School 

Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study II (Fox et al. 2001). 

• A range of foods was observed across sites in SFSP meals, with a greater variety of 

menus observed at lunch than at breakfast. Breakfast typically consisted of milk, 

cereal, and 100-percent fruit juice; some breakfasts included a hot main entree, such 

as scrambled eggs or a breakfast sandwich. A typical SFSP lunch contained milk, a 

sandwich or mixed dish, a fruit or juice, and a vegetable. Fifty-four percent of 

lunches provided a cold main entree, 43 percent provided a hot entree, and 3 percent 

offered both options.

• Because nonschool sponsors must follow the SFSP meal pattern, whereas school 

sponsors may use other meal planning approaches, compliance with the SFSP 

meal pattern was assessed only for nonschool sponsors. Fifty-five percent of 

breakfasts and 71 percent of lunches served by nonschool sponsors met all the 

SFSP meal pattern requirements. Breakfasts sometimes did not contain all the 

components, and sometimes fell short of the required amounts (particularly for the 

fruit/vegetable component). At lunch, meals that fell short typically served all the 

components but did not meet the minimum serving size for some of them, particularly 

the meat/meat alternate component. 

• Children wasted an average of about one-third of the calories and nutrients they 

were served. This amount varied across sites and by foods. About 11 percent of 

meals were eaten completely, with no plate waste. At more than two-thirds (68 

percent) of the sites, site staff reported that the children’s dislike of the food was the 

most common reason for waste. About 44 percent of sites provided a “share box” to 

encourage children to share unwanted food, and to reduce food waste.9

2. Issues for the Future 

The findings on the nutrient content of SFSP meals suggest meal pattern and menu planning 

issues for consideration. The findings on meal service may be useful in developing topics that 

sponsors might emphasize during training of site staff who prepare or handle meals, or that could 

be incorporated into menu planning materials for sponsors. These findings also suggest that 

nutrition education for sponsors’ staff, site staff, and SFSP participants may be a useful strategy 

for improving menu planning, promoting healthy eating behaviors, and reducing plate waste. 

 9

Plate waste estimates do not include leftover meals that were not served or items left in the 

share box at the end of the meal service. 
225

a. Meal Patterns and Menu Planning 

As noted, some meals served by nonschool sponsors did not meet meal pattern requirements, 

usually because the serving size of a component (most often, the meat or meat alternate 

component at lunch and the fruit/vegetable component at breakfast) fell short by a modest 

amount. Training site food-handling staff about the required serving sizes (particularly at selfpreparation sites), and having sponsors work with vendors to ensure that the required serving 

sizes are served may improve this area. In some cases, meals did not meet the meal pattern 

requirements because commercial packaging of some foods dictated the serving size. For 

example, some brands of single-serve boxes of ready-to-eat cereals and juices were smaller than 

the required serving sizes. Additional guidelines and training could assist sponsors in purchasing 

and preparing foods to meet the minimum portion sizes in the context of such factors as 

commercial packaging. 

On average, SFSP meals met standards for key nutrients but exceeded recommended levels 

of sodium, fat, and saturated fat. In the future, the SFSP will be challenged to continue to 

provide meals offering adequate energy and nutrients while striving to meet dietary guidelines 

for saturated fat, total fat, and sodium. The foods analysis and nutrient distributions may be 

useful to the program’s future need to consider Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) while 

reviewing meal pattern requirements and while helping sponsors plan menus (Institute of 

Medicine 2000a). 

Overweight and poor dietary habits among American children are issues of increasing policy 

concern (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2000; and Food and Nutrition Service 

2002g). To address these concerns and meet nutritional goals, SFSP sponsors and sites must 

take steps to (1) ensure that SFSP meals contain a variety of nutrient-dense foods, such as fruits, 

vegetables, whole-grain breads and cereals, and low-fat dairy products and meats; and (2) reduce 

the total fat, saturated fat, and sodium content of the meals. Additional nutrition education for 

sponsors and site staff may help them to plan menus that achieve these goals. 

Although it was not possible to directly assess food variety within sites, the site supervisors’

reports of children’s least favorite foods and most favorite foods suggest that providing a variety 

of foods to children is important. Some site supervisors reported that they had little opportunity 

to request or change foods served at their sites, and little communication with sponsors about 

which foods would be served. Sponsors could be encouraged to develop a mechanism to obtain 

feedback and input from site staff (and from participating children) about children’s foods 

preferences. A dialogue of this type could lead sponsors to serve meals that are more appealing 

to children, thereby reducing plate waste. 

b. Meal Presentation 

The way that meals are served may influence children’s food consumption. Observation 

showed that site staff used a variety of creative methods to serve meals, and to engage children in 

the meal service. For example, site staff took prepackaged bag meals apart to increase their 

appeal, gave children a choice of fresh fruits, encouraged children to take a second fruit or milk 

from the “share box,” asked children to help distribute bag lunches or set the table, and served 
226

meals “family style.” Children also need ample time to eat and finish meals, as suggested in one 

interviewer’s note: “The bus was leaving before the children finished lunch. More than one 

child was still eating as they raced to garbage cans and the bus.”

Because school meals and SFSP meals have similar requirements for nutrient content, 

materials from USDA’s School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children (SMI) may be applicable to 

the needs of the SFSP. The SMI provides schools with educational materials and technical 

assistance to assist food service personnel in preparing healthy, appealing meals for children 

(Food and Nutrition Service 2002g). Both SMI resources and SFSP Best Practices, promoted on 

the FNS Web site, may help state agencies train sponsors, and help sponsors train site staff, 

about ways to improve meal service and make healthy foods more appealing to children. 

c. Reducing Plate Waste 

Efforts to reduce plate waste must take into consideration children’s food preferences while 

ensuring that the variety of appealing foods served meets nutrition standards. Improving meal 

planning and presentation, as discussed in the preceding sections, may help to achieve this goal. 

Another strategy that may be worthy of further study is offering more options at the meals (for 

example, choices of different types of milk, of fruits or vegetables, and of entrees); in some 

cases, however, offering more choices may be infeasible because of such factors as cost or 

storage constraints. Other strategies, such as nutrition education for children and increased use 

of share boxes, may also help. 

Calcium is an important nutrient for growing children, as indicated by its inclusion in the 

U.S. Dietary Guidelines and as a key nutrient cited in school meal regulations. This study found 

that mean calcium levels in SFSP meals served were roughly equal to recommended standards 

for older children. On average, however, 38 percent of milk served at breakfast and 30 percent 

of milk served at lunch was wasted. This level of milk waste suggests that the mean amount of 

calcium from SFSP meals actually consumed may be below recommended levels. Some 

children may waste milk because they prefer white milk but are served only chocolate milk, or 

vice versa. Some children may waste milk because they are lactose intolerant or because of 

cultural preference, and some may choose another beverage (for example, fruit juice or a drink 

from another source) rather than drinking the milk served as a beverage, if these choices are 

available. However, not all sites offered a choice among types and flavors of milk. Providing a 

choice of low-fat white and chocolate milks and serving other foods containing calcium, such as 

calcium-fortified orange juice, low-fat yogurt, and low-fat cheese, are possible strategies to 

reduce milk waste and meet calcium recommendations. 

Increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables is an important strategy in improving the 

nutritional quality of children’s diets. The composition of SFSP lunches in 2001 reflects an 

increased focus on meeting the fruit/vegetable component requirement by serving both fruits and 

vegetables—most SFSP lunches in 2001 included both fruits and vegetables, whereas most sites 

in 1986 served two fruits (Ohls et al. 1988). However, children wasted about half the vegetables 

and 40 percent of the fruits served at lunch, suggesting the importance of strategies to reduce 

fruit and vegetable waste. One site supervisor stated, “The kids were so small that it was hard to 

bite on a hard apple and a hard peach.” Preparing fruit differently for smaller children (for 
227

example, paring and slicing the fruit) and purchasing ripe fruit are two strategies that may reduce 

this waste. Serving low-fat dressings or dips may encourage children to eat raw vegetables. 

Involving children in meal preparation more often may also encourage them to eat healthy foods. 

Fewer than half the sites were observed to have share boxes to encourage children to share 

unwanted food. This finding suggests that more sponsors should be encouraged to provide their 

sites with share boxes, and to train site staff in the appropriate use of the share box. However, 

sponsors must offer share boxes in accordance with local health code requirements, which may 

require disposal of unclaimed share box items at the end of the meal. 

3. Future Research 

The SFSP study provides a rich database for additional research on the content of SFSP 

meals and on factors that affect the extent of plate waste in the program. The study also points to 

other areas of research that were not feasible given the sample sizes of the subgroups, and to 

areas that the site observations did not cover in depth. For example, future research might 

explore the content of training offered to site staff in more detail and the relationship between 

sponsor and site staff training in nutrition, use of a share box, and plate waste. A more in-depth 

study of school-sponsored sites that did and did not use OVS might provide more insight into the 

effects of this approach on nutrients consumed and on the extent of plate waste. 

Additional research could be conducted with the SFSP data to identify the major food 

sources of nutrients at breakfast, lunch, and supper. This research could suggest foods to serve 

in SFSP meals to meet nutrition standards that were not met in meals observed for this study. 

Additional food and nutrient analysis combined with analysis of children’s food preferences and 

plate waste could help to explain the factors that affect plate waste. Related factors that were not 

included in this study, but that a focused study could address, are the effects on plate waste of 

whether competing foods and beverages are available on site, the time available for children to 

eat, and the time between serving snacks and serving meals. 

229

REFERENCES 

Briefel, Ronette, Michael Sinclair, Laura Kalb, Anne Gordon, Fazana Saleem-Ismail, and Martha 

Kovac. “Summer Feeding Design Study: Final Report. Volume I: Design and Costs for 

Program Component.” Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 31, 2000. 

Chromy R. “Sequential Sample Selection Methods.” Proceedings of the American Statistical 

Association Survey Research Section. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association, 

1979, pp. 401-406. 

Decker, Paul T., and Ellen Eliason Kisker, with Johanna Patch and Deborah Garvey. “An 

Evaluation of the Summer Food Service Demonstration.” Final report submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis and Evaluation. 

Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., November 2, 1990. 

Decker, Paul T., James C. Ohls, Elizabeth Quinn, and Amy Klein. “Private Nonprofit Sponsors 

in the Summer Food Service Program.” Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis and Evaluation. Princeton, NJ: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., May 1993. 

Devaney, Barbara, Anne Gordon, and John Burghardt. “Dietary Intakes of Students.” American 

Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 61, suppl., 1995, pp. 205S-212S. 

Dillon, M.S., and H.W. Lane. “Evaluation of the Offer vs. Serve Option Within Self-Serve, 

Choice Menu Lunch Program at the Elementary School Level.” Journal of the American 

Dietetic Association, vol. 89, no. 12, December 1989, pp. 1780-1785. 

Federal Register. “Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; National School 

Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs; National Average 

Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates.” Federal Register, vol. 66, no. 124, June 27, 

2001, pp. 34146-34149. 

Federal Register. “Department of Agriculture, Summer Food Service Program Implementation 

of Legislative Reforms.” Federal Register, vol. 65, no. 250, December 28, 2000, pp. 82246-

82251. 

Federal Register. “Department of Agriculture, Summer Food Service Program; Program Meal 

Service During the School Year, Paperwork Reduction, and Targeted State Monitoring.” 

Federal Register, vol. 64, no. 249, December 29, 1999, pp. 72889-72898. 

Food and Nutrition Service. “Summer Food Service Program.” Program participation data. 

[www.fns.usda.gov/pd/sfsummar.htm] Accessed January 18, 2002a. 
230

Food and Nutrition Service. “SFSP Reimbursement Rates.” [fns.usda.gov/cnd/Summer/ 

Administration/reimbursement_rates_2001.html] Accessed January 25, 2002b. 

Food and Nutrition Service. “SFSP—Legislative History.” [www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Summer/ 

AboutSFSP/history.htm] Accessed January 31, 2002c. 

Food and Nutrition Service. “A Message from Eric M. Bost: Under Secretary for Food, 

Nutrition, and Consumer Services.” [www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Summer/States/message.html] 

Accessed February 25, 2002d. 

Food and Nutrition Service. “National School Lunch Program: Participation and Lunches 

Served.” [www.fns.usda.gov/pd/slsummar.htm] Accessed January 18, 2002e. 

Food and Nutrition Service. “State Pilot Project.” [www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Summer/sponsors/ 

state_pilot.html] Accessed May 15, 2002f. 

Food and Nutrition Service. “Nutrition Education in FNS: A Coordinated Approach for 

Promoting Healthy Behaviors. A Report to Congress.” [www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/ 

published/nutritioneducation/Files/CongressNutEd(2-2002). pdf] Accessed June 3, 2002g. 

Food and Nutrition Service. “SFSP—Implementation of Public Law 105-336.” 

[www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Summer/Administration/PubLaw105-336.html] Accessed January 

31, 2002. December 3, 1998. 

Food Research and Action Center. “Hunger Doesn’t Take a Vacation: Summer Nutrition Status 

Report.” Washington, DC: FRAC, June 2002. 

Fox, M.K., M.K. Crepinsek, P. Connor, and M. Battaglia. “School Nutrition Dietary Assessment 

Study—II (SNDA-II) Summary of Findings.” Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, April 2001. 

Gordon, Anne, Michael Sinclair, Laura Kalb, and Fazana Saleem-Ismail (MPR); and Thomas 

Godfrey, Stephen Tordella, and Priscilla Foran (Decision Demographics, Inc.). “Summer 

Feeding Design Study: Final Report. Volume II: Feasibility, Design, and Cost of a 

Participant-Nonparticipant Study.” Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 31, 2000. 

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, 

Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, 

Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001. 

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications 

in Dietary Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000a. 

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin C, 

Vitamin E, Selenium, and Carotenoids. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000b. 
231

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, 

Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998. 

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, 

Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press, 1997. 

Jansen, G.R., and J.M. Harper. “Consumption and Plate Waste of Menu Items Served in the 

National School Lunch Program.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 73, 

no. 4, October 1978, pp. 395-400. 

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. Recommended Dietary Allowances, 

10th edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989a. 

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. Diet and Health: Implications for 

Reducing Chronic Disease Risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989b. 

Ohls, J., E. Cavin, E. Kisker, N. Chapman, and J. Homrighausen. “An Evaluation of the 

Summer Food Service Program: Final Report.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc., July 1988. 

Reger, Christina, Carol E. O’Neil, Theresa A. Nicklas, Leann Myers, and Gerald S. Berenson. 

“Plate Waste of School Lunches Served to Children in a Low-Socioeconomic Elementary 

School in South Louisiana.” School Food Service Research Review, vol. 20, suppl., 1996, 

pp. 13-19. 

U.S. Census Bureau. “Historical Poverty Tables. Table 3: Poverty Status of People, by Age, 

Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2000.” [www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/ 

histpov3.html] Accessed May 20, 2002. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. “USDA News Release: USDA Announces Plans to Continue 

Improving Children’s Access to the Summer Food Service Program.” 

[www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/03/0082.htm] Accessed March 5, 2002a. March 4, 

2002a. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. “Variation in Meal Requirements 

for Religious Reasons: Jewish Schools/Institutions.” [www.nal.usda.gov:8001/ 

Recipes/religious-jewish.html]. Accessed March 12, 2002b. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Summer Food Service Program for 

Children. 2001 Administrative Guidance for Sponsors. Washington, DC: USDA, January 

2001. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nutrition 

and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Fifth Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 2000. 
232

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. Washington, DC: 

DHHS, January 2000. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. Welfare Reform: Effects of Reduced Reimbursements on the 

Summer Food Service Program. Publication no. GAO/RCED-99-20. Washington, DC: 

GAO, December 1998. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. Summer Feeding Program for Children: Reforms Begun—

Many More Urgently Needed. Publication no. GAO CED 78-90. Washington, DC: GAO, 

March 1978. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. The Summer Feeding Program: How to Feed the Children 

and Stop Program Abuses. Publication no. GAO CED-77-59. Washington, DC: GAO, 

April 1977. 

Williams, C.L. “Importance of Dietary Fiber in Childhood.” Journal of the American Dietetic 

Association, vol. 95, no. 10, October 1995, pp. 1140-1149. 
APPENDIX A 

DATA COLLECTION METHODS 

A.3

This appendix presents the data collection methods used to conduct interviews with state 

administrators, current sponsors, and former sponsors, and interviews and observations at the 

sites. In each case, the universe or sample for the interviews is discussed, as are the materials 

sent to respondents, the training of staff, the conduct of the interview and observations, the data 

processing, and the results of the interviews. Then, key data cleaning decisions that involved 

consistency checks across several data sources are discussed. Finally, this appendix discusses 

the development of the 2001 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) Sponsor-Site Database. 

A. STATE DATA COLLECTION 

1. Interview Universe 

The state administrator interviews are a census of administrators at agencies responsible for 

the SFSP in each state or territory in which the program operated in 2001. Interviews were 

conducted with administrators in all 50 states, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands. In New York, two agencies administer the SFSP: (1) the state education agency 

administers the program for school and government sponsors; and (2) the Food and Nutrition 

Service (FNS) regional office administers it for nonprofit sponsors, residential camps, and 

National Youth Sports Programs. A separate interview was completed with each agency, 

thereby essentially treating the agencies as two separate “states.” The FNS regional office 

administers the program in Michigan and in Virginia, so the FNS staff member with major 

responsibility for the program in each of those states was interviewed.1

 As Guam did not operate 

the SFSP in 2001, no one from Guam was interviewed. 

2. Preinterview Activities 

In spring 2001, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) mailed a letter to the state SFSP 

contact designated by FNS. A contact person, generally the main person responsible for the 

SFSP at the agency, was then chosen by each state agency. MPR contacted these people several 

times in the spring to obtain sample frame information for the sponsor and site samples. 

On August 28, 2001, MPR mailed a second letter to all the state contacts. The letter thanked 

them for their help during the spring and summer months and informed them about the requests 

to be made of them during the next few months. The letter outlined the additional sponsor and 

site lists required to build a sample for the former sponsor data collection effort, and to complete 

the sponsor and site database. It also requested final meal counts, by sponsor, which would 

become part of the sponsor database. In addition, the letter informed the state administrators that 

MPR staff would be calling to set up appointments to conduct telephone interviews with them. 

The letter included a sheet that listed some of the questions that would be covered during the 

 1

The terms “state agency” and “state administrator” are used in this appendix for 

convenience, but they always include regional-office administered programs. 
A.4

interview. Its primary purpose was to list questions that might require state administrators to 

look up information in their records prior to the interview. 

Because of the importance of the relationships with state administrators and the qualitative 

nature of the interviews, MPR decided that professional staff working on the study would 

conduct all the state administrator interviews. The survey director and project director conducted 

a 3-hour training session. Four professionals received training in conducting the interviews from 

the project director and survey director. During the training, each question was reviewed 

individually, with particular focus on those related to the pilot program to simplify 

reimbursement rules. In addition, the training covered the qualitative nature of the survey, and 

staff were encouraged to write margin notes to fully explain answers or comments provided 

during the interview. 

The states were divided among the staff. Whenever possible, states were assigned to staff 

who had had contact with the states’ administrators during previous phases of the study. 

3. The Interview 

The first interview was conducted on September 26, 2001, and the last one, on October 29. 

Interviews were conducted with administrators from all 54 state agencies, for a final response 

rate of 100 percent. The interview with the state administrator in Puerto Rico was conducted in 

Spanish by a bilingual member of the project team, with help from another MPR staff member 

experienced in translation. State administrators were encouraged to elaborate on their responses 

during the interview. The average length of the interview was 60 minutes, with the interviews 

ranging from 25 minutes to nearly 2 hours (1 hour and 55 minutes). 

In most cases, interviews were conducted with one respondent. However, 13 state 

administrators invited others on their staff to participate. In some states, for example, multiple 

respondents completed the interview because the administrator was new to the program; in some 

states in which other departments or other staff handled funding, these staff participated because 

the administrator did not feel able to answer questions about funding. 

The MPR project director encouraged research staff who would later be analyzing the data 

to listen to one or more state interviews (with the respondent’s permission). This participation 

was designed to help the researchers better understand how the program works at the state level. 

Six state interviews had more than one MPR staff member on the call. 

4. Postinterview Activities 

Because of the qualitative nature of the interview and the many open-ended questions asked, 

the interviewer inputted onto a computer the state administrator’s verbatim statements and any 

additional comments made during the interview. This information was then coded and edited by 

senior research staff responsible for analyzing the data. Each staff member kept track of his or 

her own interviews and followed up with state administrators to obtain any information that had 

not been provided during the interview (for example, because the state administrator had to 

consult records). Most followup occurred by electronic mail. All questionnaires were reviewed 
A.5

and edited by the survey director or her assistant prior to data entry. They were then data entered 

and 100-percent verified. The data were reviewed and cleaned prior to analysis. 

Because the interviews were a census of all state SFSP administrators in 2001, it was not 

necessary to construct weights to represent the universe of state agencies. The responses also 

have no sampling error. (They may have recall or reporting error.) 

MPR merged the interview data and data on the type of state agency, which was obtained 

from the state Management and Administrative Plans (MAPs). MPR also compared the state 

interview data with data on the sponsor and site lists received from the states. In the many cases 

in which small discrepancies between the interview data and the lists were identified, MPR 

followed up with the state agency. Most of the discrepancies (usually involving only one or two 

sponsors) were resolved. The sponsor and site list data provided the following variables: 

(1) number of sponsors; (2) number of sponsors, by type; and (3) number of new sponsors. The 

list database also was the source of a variable for the number of sites per state. The data reported 

in the state administrator interview was used for all data missing from the lists. The final state 

interview data file reflects the best estimates of these quantities. 

B. SPONSOR SURVEY 

1. Sample Selection 

The sample for the sponsor survey was selected from lists of SFSP sponsors from summer 

2000 and lists of expected new sponsors that had completed applications or attended training to 

be SFSP sponsors in 2001. Of the 138 sponsors in the primary sample, 130 were continuing 

sponsors; the other 8 were new. Three sponsors were selected from the replacement sample to 

replace 3 eligible sponsors who refused to participate in the survey at the outset, bringing the 

total primary and replacement sample released to 141. 

Eligibility criteria required that the organization serve as a sponsor of the SFSP in the 

summer of 2001. In recognition of the fact that the lists would include some ineligible programs, 

calls were made to screen selected programs for eligibility. These calls identified 10 ineligible 

sponsors—8 year 2000 sponsors that did not participate in 2001, and 2 new sponsors that never 

opened their SFSP sites. The total eligible sample therefore consisted of 131 sponsors ([138 

primary sample members + 3 replacement sample members = 141 total sample] – 10 ineligible 

members = total eligible sample of 131). 

2. Initial Contacts 

Sponsors were first contacted by telephone to obtain the site lists to be used in sampling for 

the site visits. During these initial calls, sponsors were notified about the sponsor survey and site 

visits and were screened for eligibility. At that time, three sponsors refused to participate in the 

study. 
A.6

The SFSP sponsor survey was designed to be a self-administered mail survey with telephone 

followup. Two versions of the questionnaire were developed: (1) a version that sponsors would 

complete on their own, and (2) a version that would be administered by a telephone interviewer. 

Because different sponsors began and ended their operations at different times, the selected 

sponsors were sorted by opening date. (For follow-up purposes, careful attention also was given 

to program closing dates.) Shortly after the opening date for each program, a packet was mailed 

to each sponsor that contained a letter providing information about the study; the study brochure; 

the self-administered questionnaire; and a preaddressed, postage-paid envelope. Prior to mailing 

these materials, survey staff extracted information about each program from the sponsor’s 

application and recorded it on the sponsor questionnaire. Respondents were instructed to review 

the extracted information; update it, if necessary; and add any missing information. 

3. Mail Survey and Telephone Followup 

The advance letter asked the sponsors to complete the survey as soon as possible. The 

preaddressed, postage-paid envelope included in the mailed packet of survey materials made it 

easy for the sponsors to return the self-administered survey. MPR staff carefully monitored both 

incoming and outstanding surveys. As new information was received, the survey status for each 

case was updated in the tracking database. 

Sponsors who had not returned a completed survey within a reasonable period were 

contacted by telephone. Before doing so, however, MPR project staff reviewed the contact sheet 

for each case to make sure there were no special issues with the sponsor, and to determine 

whether a site visit with that sponsor had been scheduled soon. If so, followup was delayed until 

after the site visit. If there were no unusual circumstances surrounding the case, followup 

proceeded. MPR staff developed a telephone script to determine whether the sponsor had 

received the survey materials. A sponsor who had received them was asked when he or she 

would be able to return the completed survey to MPR. This date was recorded on the sponsor’s 

contact sheet. If the survey was not received by that date, MPR staff again called the sponsor. A 

sponsor who had not received the survey materials was mailed a new survey packet, with later 

followup, if necessary. Ten sponsors required a second mailing of survey materials. 

The mailing of survey materials and follow-up reminder calls proved to be a highly efficient 

method of collecting data for the sponsor survey. MPR’s pretest experience led it to expect only 

20 percent of surveys to be completed by mail. However, 94 out of 126 total completed surveys 

(75 percent) were completed by mail. Possible facilitating factors include the well-received 

study brochure and efforts by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff, state agency staff, 

and some advocacy groups to make sponsors aware of the study and of its importance. 

4. Telephone Survey and Telephone Followup 

Three telephone interviewers participated in a 4-hour training session on July 13, 2001. 

They received background information about the SFSP Implementation Study and were trained 

in administering the sponsor survey over the telephone. They then received a total of 53 contact 
A.7

sheets for sponsors who were delinquent in returning their completed surveys, to be used for 

additional followup. 

Professional staff at MPR, including the project director, the survey director, and a survey 

associate who had worked on previous rounds of sponsor contacts, received the remaining 33 

outstanding cases for telephone followup. The sponsors in these cases were large and complex 

or had some special issue. This intensive followup produced more mail completes than 

telephone completes, because many sponsors preferred to complete the survey on their own, 

rather than have it administered to them over the telephone. MPR survey staff notified the 

telephone center staff whenever completed surveys were mailed back. Telephone center staff, in 

turn, removed that sponsor’s contact sheet from the sample designated for telephone followup. 

Telephone center staff received an August cut-off date to complete their work. After that 

date, telephone center staff returned the few remaining incomplete cases to senior MPR staff for 

more intensive followup. Most of these cases mailed completed surveys to MPR after additional 

telephone reminders; only three were completed over the telephone. In all, 32 interviews were 

completed by telephone—29 by telephone center staff, and 3 by senior survey staff. The 

telephone interviews took an average of 45 minutes to complete. 

All but 2 of the 126 surveys were completed by mail or telephone by September 15. Senior 

staff required 2 more weeks to obtain the last two self-administered completes, which were 

surveys of large sponsors; these sponsors had to gather information from multiple sources to 

complete the survey. 

5. Editing, Coding, and Data Entry 

A survey associate edited and coded each questionnaire that was returned to MPR. The 

associate called the sponsors, if necessary, to obtain missing data or to clarify responses. 

Because the majority of the completed surveys had been self-administered, 73 cases required call 

backs. Although time-consuming, this process was successful; all but five respondents were 

contacted in this way. 

The edited and coded surveys were delivered to the data entry department, where numeric 

data were entered into a specially created data entry program. In addition, open-ended responses 

were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and were coded by the research staff who were 

conducting the analysis. Data files were then produced, and the data were cleaned. 

6. Sponsor Survey Results 

Overall, the sponsor survey ran smoothly and successfully. The response rate for the selfadministered mail survey was much higher than expected. As a result, the telephone center 

staff’s effort was lower than expected. The final results are shown in Table A.1. 

Surveys were completed with 126 of the 131 eligible sponsor cases, for a 96-percent 

response rate. Only five sponsors in the sample refused. Three refused during the initial 

screening calls, and two “passively” refused by failing to complete the survey even after repeated 
A.8

TABLE A.1 

RESULTS OF THE SPONSOR SURVEY 

Final Status 

Primary 

Sample 

Replacement 

Sample 

Total 

Sample 

Completed—Self-Administered 92 2 94 

Completed—Telephone 31a 1 32 

Final Refusal 5 5 

Ineligible—Former Sponsor 8 8 

Ineligible—New Sponsor that Did Not 

Open Sites 2 2 

Final Status Total 138 3 141 

Total Records 141 

a

One interview completed in person during a site visit was counted as a completed telephone 

interview. 

contact attempts. The cooperation level among the sponsors was very high, contributing 

significantly to the high response rate. Follow-up efforts by survey staff also were important in 

bringing the survey to a successful conclusion. 

C. SITE DATA COLLECTION 

This section discusses the methods used to conduct the site-level data collection effort. It 

covers the hiring and training of interviewers, the selection of sites for visits, preparations for the 

site visits, the procedures used by the interviewers on site, the processing and coding of the 

documents, and the results of the site visits. 

1. Hiring and Training of Interviewers 

MPR hired 15 experienced field interviewers to conduct the site visits. The interviewers 

came from geographically dispersed parts of the country (four from the East Coast, four from the 

Midwest, five from the South, and two from the West Coast). Many had previous experience in 

food and nutrition data collection. MPR also subcontracted with Garcia Research Associates, a 

California-based research firm, to conduct all the California site visits. All five Garcia 
A.9

interviewers were bilingual in Spanish, as were two of MPR’s interviewers, and these 

interviewers were prepared to conduct interviews in Spanish, if necessary. 

Three-day interviewer training was conducted in Philadelphia on May 31, June 1, and 

June 2, 2001. Laura Kalb, the survey director, Ronette Briefel, one of the principal investigators, 

Anne Gordon, the project director and principal investigator, and Barbara Schiff, the training 

coordinator, conducted the training. During the first day, the interviewers learned about the 

research questions and design of the study, reviewed general interviewing techniques and 

recording conventions, and reviewed the site supervisor questionnaire and site observation forms 

in detail. The first day also covered the importance of establishing rapport and gaining 

cooperation. 

The second and third days focused on the meal and plate waste observations. The second 

day began with a discussion of administrative and travel issues, which was followed by a general 

discussion of SFSP meal observations and plate waste observations. Interviewers were taught 

the procedures for these observations, including procedures for describing foods in detail and for 

visually and manually estimating food quantities. The interviewers (1) were taught to read food 

labels; (2) learned to observe and record the details about the food, such as the brand name, form, 

and preparation method; (3) practiced visually estimating portion sizes of foods served; 

(4) practiced measuring and recording the portion sizes of foods left on the plate (plate waste); 

and (5) learned how to randomly sample meals and plate wastes. On the third day of training, 

the interviewers had additional practice in meal observations. They also discussed and practiced 

plate waste observations. During this training session, each interviewer received direct feedback. 

All attendees received a written training manual that covered the information presented 

during the training. They also received a bag containing measurement and visual aids to be used 

in the field to facilitate and standardize the meal and plate waste observations. These aids 

included measuring cups and spoons, a ruler, paper towels, bottled water, laminated guides 

listing common abbreviations and probes to use in describing common foods, and visual aids to 

help with portion measurement. In addition, each interviewer was given a photo identification 

badge showing the study logo, a brochure about the study, and a letter from USDA about the 

study, which they could show to program staff. All interviewers were given a toll-free help-line 

number at MPR for use if they encountered problems. 

2. Selecting Sites 

Because the goal was to produce a dataset linking the sites to their sponsors, the first step in 

selecting sites was to select a national probability sample of sponsors. One or more sites was 

randomly selected from each selected sponsor. At least one of each sampled sponsor’s sites was 

selected for a visit. For larger sponsors, as many as four sites were selected. Samples of 

“replacement” sites also were created, in which as many as two “replacement” sites were 

matched to each “primary” site. A replacement site could therefore substitute for a primary site 

that refused to allow a site visit, or that closed before a visit could be scheduled. 

To be eligible for the study, an eligible sponsor had to operate the site. Eligible sponsors 

were those approved for the 2001 Summer Food Program in the 48 contiguous states and the 
A.10

District of Columbia that operated at least 1 site for at least 1 week between June 9, 2001, and 

August 31, 2001. Because 9 of the original 138 sponsors sampled were found to be ineligible for 

the survey before the site sample was selected, 9 sites were excluded from the 178 initially 

allocated to the sponsor sample. Thus, 169 sites were released for interviews. In addition, 

3 replacement sponsors (and 3 corresponding sites) were added to the samples due to early 

sponsor refusals, yielding a total of 172 sites released. 

Four sites were ineligible. (In one case, the sponsor also was ineligible; in the other cases, 

the sponsor was eligible but the site never opened.) These sites represented a proportion of the 

population that was ineligible for the study, so they were not replaced. Two eligible sites that 

could not be visited were replaced. However, each of the initial replacements was found to be 

ineligible or unavailable for interview and was subsequently replaced with a second replacement. 

Thus, 176 sites (172 sites plus 2 sets of replacements) were released for interview; 5 of these 

sites (4 sites plus 1 replacement) were ineligible.

The data collection plan was to observe the lunch meal at each site, and to observe one other 

meal at sites that served additional meals. Some sites served all three meals, so random selection 

was used to choose between breakfast and supper. Some sites also provided snacks. If 

interviewers were aware that sites served snacks, they recorded that snacks were provided, but 

they did not observe meals served or plate wastes during snacks. 

One goal of the data collection plan was to capture the variety of foods provided to children. 

Interviewers were instructed to observe 10 plates at sites that permitted children to select from a 

variety of food items (which typically occurred when food was served in a cafeteria setting).2

 

They also were instructed to observe 10 plates in schools that used “offer versus serve (OVS),”

an option carried over from the National School Lunch Program, which permits children to 

refuse some of the required meal components. If children were not offered choices but, rather, 

received a “standardized” or unitized meal, interviewers were asked to observe five plates. 

To ensure that the visits represented the range of program operations at a site, the day of the 

week for the site observation was selected at random from the days that the site was open. The 

selected day of the week served as a target date for scheduling the interviewers. Table A.2 

compares the distribution of the days scheduled for visits with the actual days of the visits. 

 2

The observed food and portion sizes for the randomly selected sample of 5 to 10 children 

are referred to as “plates” for short. However, the foods often were served in a bag, in a box, or 

on a tray. 
A.11

TABLE A.2 

PREFERRED AND ACTUAL SITE VISIT DAYS 

Preferred Visits Scheduled Actual Visits 

Preferred 

Day of Visit Number Percent Number Percent 

Monday 31 19.0 22 16.7 

Tuesday 34 21.0 41 25.3 

Wednesday 28 17.3 32 19.8 

Thursday 40 24.7 40 24.7 

Friday 28 17.3 21 12.9 

Saturday 1 0.6 1 0.6 

Sunday 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Total 162 100.0 162 100.0 

To capture variations in site operations among the early, middle, and late stages of 

operation, visits were scheduled on the basis of the sites’ actual dates of operation such that 

interviewers conducted one-third of the visits during the first days of the operation, one-third 

during the middle, and one-third near the end. The actual visits came close to achieving this 

result, as shown in Table A.3. 

TABLE A.3 

STAGE OF SITE OPERATIONS WHEN VISIT OCCURRED 

Stage of Operations Number of Sites Percentage of Sites 

Early 55 34.0 

Middle 57 35.2 

Late 50 30.8 

Total Visits 162 100.0 
A.12

3. Pre-Visit Activities 

After the site sample was selected, MPR staff created a spreadsheet that included the site ID; 

the site’s name; the meal service to be observed; the preferred day of the week for the visit; the 

dates of operation; and the estimated attendance, by meal. This information became the basis for 

the interviewer assignment tracking spreadsheet. To determine the date of the visit and the 

interviewer or interviewers to assign, the MPR field director reviewed the sampled sites 

according to the following criteria (in order of importance): 

1. Dates of operation, particularly closing dates 

2. Geographic proximity of a site to other sampled sites 

3. Geographic proximity of sites to interviewers 

4. Size of the site (to determine whether one or two interviewers were necessary) 

Scheduling occurred on an ongoing basis throughout the summer. After a tentative 

interviewer assignment had been made, field supervisors telephoned interviewers to confirm 

their availability and willingness to travel to the assigned site on the preferred date. After 

interviewers accepted the assignment, they were asked to make their travel plans. Whenever 

possible, MPR gave interviewers 7 to 14 days’ notice, so that it could economize on airfare. The 

first sites were visited on June 11, 2001; the last site was visited on August 16, 2001. 

Concurrent with the assignment of sites to interviewers, MPR staff telephoned the 

sponsoring organizations to inform them that one of their sites would be visited at some point 

during the next 2 weeks. These calls were used to: 

1. Confirm that the site had opened and would be open during the scheduled visit time 

2. Confirm that the site served the meals selected for observation, and confirm the 

hours of meal service 

3. More accurately estimate the number of participants, to determine whether more than 

one interviewer was necessary 

4. Determine how food usually was distributed to children, to determine whether more 

than one interviewer was necessary 

5. Determine whether any special activities were scheduled on the proposed day of the 

visit, such as off-site field trips 

6. Confirm the site’s address and the contact person’s name 

During calls to sponsors that ran multiple sites, MPR staff asked about several sites, so that 

the sponsors would not know which site had been selected. The sponsors also usually did not 

know which day had been selected. Calls to the sponsors were made up until the day before the 
A.13

visit. Sponsors who could not be reached by the third day before the scheduled visit were faxed 

a brief letter informing them that a site would be visited during the next few days. The letter 

asked that they call MPR to confirm the status of the site. MPR staff faxed letters to 

13 sponsors, in some cases the day before the visit, and subsequently spoke with staff in all 

13 offices before sending interviewers to the selected sites. 

MPR staff used information obtained during the telephone calls to create “site information 

sheets.” A site information sheet, which was given to the interviewer(s) assigned to visit that 

site, listed the site’s address, contact person’s name, meal(s) to be observed, meal service hours, 

sponsor’s name and telephone number, and number of plates to observe (5 or 10 meals). The site 

information sheets also contained a comments section, for notes about information obtained 

during the telephone call to the sponsor’s contact. 

Interviewers were informed whether MPR had confirmed the information on the site 

information sheet. In addition, interviewers received directions to the sites, obtained from 

on-line sources. 

4. On-Site Procedures 

a. Arrival 

Interviewers were instructed to arrive at the site 1 to 1.5 hours before the scheduled start of 

lunch. If breakfast was to be observed, interviewers were asked to arrive about 30 minutes 

before the start of breakfast. Interviewers at sites that only served lunch spent an average of 4 to 

5 hours on site. Interviewers observing two meals were on site for an average of 7 to 8 hours. 

On arrival, interviewers asked to speak with the site supervisor, to explain the purpose of the 

visit, and to inform them about their plans for the day. They presented the SFSP Implementation 

Study brochure to site personnel and, if necessary, showed the supervisor the letter from USDA. 

MPR usually did not contact a site before the visit. Sites that were the only ones run by their 

sponsor knew that a visit was to take place. However, they were not told the specific date of the 

visit, unless necessary (for example, staff of a camp site on an island had to inform the 

interviewer about the boat schedule). At a few sites (nine sites, or 5.6 percent of visits), a 

representative of the sponsor came to the site during the visit to observe data collection and to 

offer assistance. Although the interviewers had no trouble obtaining access to sites, they 

sometimes had difficulty convincing site staff that they were not state or USDA monitors, 

despite their training on how to introduce themselves. 

Interviewers then located the kitchen (or food preparation area) to determine how meals 

were distributed to children. They also observed the general surroundings and any other indoor 

and outdoor site activities throughout the visit. 
A.14

b. Site Observations 

Interviewers completed several site observation forms during the course of the visit. One 

module collected general information about the site setting and operations, including information 

on the site’s location and other activities at the site; interviewers were instructed to add detailed 

comments to the form or in an attachment to the form containing additional comments. 

Interviewers completed a separate participation module for each meal observed; while the 

children came in for their meal, they counted the children and observed their characteristics. The 

module asked primarily for quantitative information (numbers or percentages), so interviewers 

were instructed to obtain the most accurate numbers possible by estimating from observation, 

consulting staff, or referring to sign-in sheets. Interviewers did not ask children any questions. 

For the module on meal service, interviewers observed and recorded how, when, and where the 

children were served meals; for example, this form included observations on whether seconds 

were served and on whether meal components were carried off site. Only one of these forms was 

completed per visit. For all the observations, interviewers remained in an unobtrusive spot in the 

dining area, where they were able to see the children and food handlers without interfering with 

the meal service. 

c. Site Supervisor Interview 

The site supervisor questionnaire was administered in person with the site supervisor or 

other knowledgeable site staff. Interviewers were encouraged to speak with the most 

knowledgeable people available during the visit; they were not limited to one respondent only. 

In about one in five visits (18.5 percent), the site supervisor survey questions were asked of 

multiple respondents. Interviewers conducted all but two of the site supervisor interviews during 

the visit. In the two other cases, the interviewer conducted the interview with the site supervisor 

by telephone, on another day. 

The site supervisor interview could be conducted at any time at the site supervisor’s 

convenience, except while meals were being served. If the interviewer was on site to observe 

lunch or lunch and dinner, the interview usually was conducted just before lunch. If the 

interviewer was observing breakfast, it usually took place between breakfast and lunch. 

The interview took about 30 minutes. The questionnaire began with a series of questions 

and their answers precoded by MPR staff who obtained the information from the state. During 

the interview, interviewers confirmed the information and obtained answers to questions with 

missing information. Site supervisors were then asked questions about the number of meals 

usually served, activities available at the site, site staffing, relations with the sponsor, training 

received, characteristics of participants, and whether they perceived a need for more outreach for 

the site. 

d. Meal Observations 

Interviewers began the meal observation portion of the visit before the children arrived, by 

talking with kitchen staff or other knowledgeable staff about the meal to be served. They looked 
A.15

at the kitchen facility or area where meals were being prepared or assembled. Whenever 

possible, they examined packages or food labels in order to obtain accurate measurement 

information. If the meal included mixed dishes, such as lasagna, the interviewers tried to obtain 

the recipes, to aid in coding for nutritional analysis. They also asked food service personnel to 

tell them the food items and portion sizes to be served, but they did not touch any food prior to 

the plate waste segment of the study. They also listed all the foods served at the meal (and 

described the foods in detail) and recorded (from labels) or estimated portion sizes. Based on the 

number of choices available and on whether OVS was used, they determined whether they 

should observe 5 or 10 plates. They were instructed to make this decision at every site, 

regardless of the information contained on the site information sheet. 

After the interviewers determined the number of plates to observe, they asked the staff for 

an estimate of the number of children participating. They also asked the staff how the children 

received their meals. They could then calculate the sampling interval for selecting plates for 

observation. If two interviewers were on site, one usually identified the child/plate to observe 

and continued to do the sampling while the second observed and recorded the food served to or 

selected by the child. Interviewers observed the food served by casually strolling behind the 

selected child and looking at the plate. They had been instructed not to ask children what they 

were served, touch a child’s food, or ask a child to delay eating so they could observe the food. 

Interviewers relied on visual estimates and the information obtained from food servers or 

package labels for portion size measurements. Interviewers often recorded additional 

information or details about the food in the comment section of the form. 

e. Plate Waste Observations 

Regardless of the number of meals observed, interviewers were instructed to randomly 

select 10 plates at the end of each site’s meal observation period, to observe the types and 

amounts of uneaten food (plate waste). Interviewers generally stood next to the area where 

children deposited their plates after eating and randomly selected every n

th plate for plate waste 

observation. After selecting a plate, the interviewers put it aside and continued to count and 

select the other plates. 

To accurately observe plate waste, interviewers at some sites had to ask site staff to change 

the usual arrangements for discarding food, or to help gather plates. Requests to site personnel to 

alter their usual routine most often were at locations at which site staff normally cleared plates or 

portions of meals as the children finished eating. For example, staff sometimes threw away the 

milk cartons and cleared plates separately. In these cases, staff were asked to leave the milk 

cartons with the plates. Interviewers often had to ask site staff to help gather plates at sites at 

which all children left the meal area at the same time. Interviewers who needed assistance 

informed the staff member which plate to remove for observation. 

A plate waste form was filled out for each meal observed (with one exception, discussed 

below). After the plates had been collected and, in most cases, after the children had left the 

eating area, the interviewers measured and recorded the types and amounts of plate waste. They 

listed the foods in the same order on the plate waste form as they did on the meal observation 
A.16

form. Any foods observed during the plate waste portion that had not been recorded during the 

meal observation were added to and described on the plate waste form. 

The interviewers measured food volume by pouring or scraping the leftover foods into a 

beaker or measuring cups or spoons. In some cases, they used rulers or two-dimensional visual 

aids to measure the length, height, and width of food. They also visually estimated the 

proportion of the original serving of each food that was uneaten (half eaten, only a quarter of the 

food left, and so on). Combining actual measurements with visual estimates sometimes enabled 

the interviewers to more accurately determine the original portion size served to children. In 

these cases, the interviewers would revise the meal observation form to reflect the newly 

estimated portion size. 

Children at many sites placed unwanted food in a “share box,” where it could be taken by 

other children. The interviewers also recorded the uneaten foods placed in the share box that had 

not been taken by other children by the end of the meal service. Because this food had been 

served at the meal, the interviewers merely recorded the name of the food item, without a 

detailed description, and the numbers of each item placed in the box. 

5. Processing and Coding of Documents 

The interviewers were instructed to send all site materials to MPR once per week, via 

overnight delivery service. A transmittal form on the front of each site envelope listed the names 

and numbers of each form in the packet. MPR field coordinators reviewed their interviewers’

work for accuracy and completeness. They contacted interviewers by telephone to obtain 

clarification or more detail, if necessary. In five cases, the field coordinator called the site 

supervisor directly to obtain information missing from supervisor surveys. MPR tracked the 

receipt of every document in a receipt control database. 

a. Editing and Checking of Documents 

Field coordinators received training in quality control specifications and editing procedures 

for all site materials.3

 Field coordinators checked and edited the site materials they received 

from the interviewers they supervised. Answers to open-ended questions and interviewers’

comments were entered into a database. The field coordinators gave the interviewers feedback 

about the quality of their work. After the forms (other than the meal-related forms) were edited, 

they were sent to the data entry department for a second round of quality control editing and for 

data entry.4 The site supervisor questionnaire and observation forms were data-entered and 

100-percent verified. The data were then cleaned and edited by research staff. 

 3

The training did not cover meal observation, plate waste, share box, or recipe forms. 

4

Appendix E discusses quality review and coding procedures for the meal and plate waste 

forms. 
A.17

6. Results of Site Data Collection 

a. Overall Response Rates and Completion Status 

Of the 176 sites released, 168 were eligible for the study, 5 were ineligible, and 3 did not 

have their eligibility determined. MPR staff visited 162 sites between June 11, 2001, and August 

16, 2001, for a completion rate of 95 percent.5

 No refusals occurred during a site visit. Sponsors 

refusing to participate were replaced, as were their sites. One sponsor, who had two sites in the 

sample, agreed to the sponsor interview but refused to allow site visits. That sponsor was not 

replaced; the sites were coded as refusals. A total of 160 of the 165 eligible primary sites 

sampled were visited, resulting in a 95-percent response rate (based on the primary sample only). 

Two replacement sites also were visited. Site supervisor interviews were completed at all sites 

visited; sites labeled as “partial completes” had less than the desired number of meal 

observations or plate wastes. Table A.4 shows the final disposition of the sample, by primary 

sample and by total sample. 

b. Use of Multiple Visitors

To monitor quality and to continually improve operations, MPR professional staff visited 

10 percent of the sites (17 sites) during the data collection phase. These professionals observed 

10 of the 15 interviewers working for MPR and staff from the subcontractor, Garcia Research 

Associates. Interviewers were given immediate feedback on their work. USDA staff 

accompanied MPR staff and field interviewers on four site visits. Overall, one-quarter of the 

sites were visited by multiple interviewers or by interviewers accompanied by MPR professional 

staff (40 sites). In general, sites were visited by more than 1 interviewer if they were large 

(serving meals to 200 or more children) or if they permitted children to choose the types of foods 

they wanted, such as sites operating on college campuses, in large cafeterias. 

 5

Response rate calculations assumed that the eligibility rate for sites with undetermined 

eligibility status and the eligibility rate for sites with known status were the same. 
A.18

TABLE A.4 

SITE STATUS SUMMARY 

 Primary Sample Total Sample 

Eligibility Determined 

Eligible 

Complete 155 156 

Partial complete: some meals not observed 4 5 

Partial complete: some meals not served and/or could not observe 1 1 

Final site refusal: sponsor refused site visit 2 2 

Unavailable for visit before closing 1 1 

Unavailable for visit: other reason 2 2 

Total 165 168 

Ineligible 

 

Site never opened 4 4 

Site open less than 1 week in June, July, and August 0 1 

Total 4 5 

Total 169 173 

Eligibility Not Determined 

 

Refusal by Sponsor: Site Eligibility Could Not Be Determined 3 3 

Total 3 3 

Total 172 176 

c. Meals Observed 

MPR instructed the interviewers which mealtimes to observe at each selected site. As noted, 

the interviewers were told to observe lunch and either breakfast or supper, based on a random 

selection, at sites that served three meals per day. Table A.5 shows the number of sites where 

MPR planned to observe each grouping of mealtimes and the actual number of sites where 

interviewers observed the mealtimes, based on the 162 sites visited. 

Selected meals differed from observed meals for several reasons. MPR staff was informed 

during the telephone calls to the sponsors or after arrival on site that six sites did not serve the 

meal scheduled for observation. Five of the six sites did not serve breakfast; the sixth did not 

serve supper. In most cases, the meal was dropped because of low participation. 
A.19

TABLE A.5 

MEALS SELECTED AND MEALS OBSERVED 

 Number of Sites 

Meal Selected for 

Observation Selected Observed Difference 

Breakfast Only 0 1 +1 

Lunch Only 56 65 +9 

Breakfast and Lunch 94 84 -10 

Lunch and Supper 12 12 0 

Total 162 162 

At three of the sites that served all three meals, interviewers substituted a different meal for 

one of the meals scheduled for observation. Supper was substituted for breakfast at two of the 

sites; breakfast was substituted for supper at the third site. MPR staff added a breakfast 

observation at a fourth site after learning that the site served more than just lunch. 

Interviewers were unable to observe breakfast at four sites or lunch at one site, even though 

the meal was served on the day of the visit. The interviewers in these cases ran into logistical 

problems, such as road construction, a change in the time meals were served, or additional travel 

time to a replacement site after first having attempted to visit the primary site (which caused 

them to arrive too late to observe breakfast). 

d. Completion Rates for Meal and Plate Waste Observations 

Interviewers were instructed to observe foods served for either 5 plates or 10 plates at each 

meal, depending the variety of food available to participants. They were able to observe all the 

plates requested at more than 9 out of 10 mealtimes (Table A.6). In the other cases, the 

interviewers were able to gather information on some plates, but not the full number desired. 

Logistical difficulties associated with collecting plate waste prevented interviewers from 

always collecting all 10 plate wastes at the completion of the meal (Table A.7). The interviewers 

conducted fewer than 10 plate waste measurements at 19 out of 162 sites, or 12 percent of all 

sites. The number of plate waste measurements ranged from 3 to 10 across sites. In one case, an 

interviewer was unable to conduct any plate waste measurement at lunch because the site staff 

accidentally threw away the 10 plates set aside for plate waste measurements. 
A.20

TABLE A.6 

PERCENTAGE OF MEALS WITH COMPLETE MEAL OBSERVATIONS 

 5 Plates Observed 10 Plates Observed 

Meal 

Number of 

Attempts 

Actual (Percentage 

of Attempts) 

Number of 

Attempts 

Actual (Percentage 

of Attempts) 

Breakfast 58 54 (93) 27 27 (100) 

Lunch 124 124 (100) 37 36 (97) 

Supper 9 9 (100) 3 3 (100) 

Total 191 187 (98) 67 66 (99) 

TABLE A.7 

PERCENTAGE OF MEALS WITH 10 COMPLETED PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONS 

 10 Plate Wastes Collected 

Meal Number of Attempts 

Actual (Percentage 

of Attempts) 

Breakfast 85 77 (91) 

Lunch 161 150 (93) 

Supper 12 11 (92) 

Total 258 238 (92) 

Table A.8 shows the actual numbers of plates served and “plate wastes” for which data were 

entered into the FIAS system for nutrient analysis. 

D. FORMER SPONSORS 

For the purposes of this study, former sponsors are defined as sponsors that participated in 

the SFSP in 2000 but not in 2001. The survey of former sponsors collected information about 

sponsors that left the program and about the factors that led them to withdraw. 
A.21

TABLE A.8 

SAMPLE SIZES FOR MEAL AND PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONS 

(Number) 

Meal Plates Entered into FIAS Plate Wastes Entered into FIAS 

Breakfast 556 815 

Lunch 989 1,570 

Supper 75 119 

Total 1,620 2,504 

1. Sample Selection 

The target population for the survey of former sponsors included all sponsors that 

participated in the SFSP in 2000 (in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia) but 

not in 2001. In August 2001, MPR requested that all state agencies provide a list of their former 

sponsors. By October, each one had complied with this request. The sample frame was 

compiled from the state-provided lists. There were a total of 367 former sponsors in the sample 

frame. MPR then selected a representative sample from the sponsors in this frame, with the goal 

of obtaining 100 completed interviews with former sponsors. MPR expected that some sponsors 

on the list would be ineligible for the survey because of errors in state records (that is, they may 

not have participated in the SFSP in 2000, or they may have participated in 2001). A sample of 

160 former sponsors was selected based on the assumption that 90 percent of the selected former 

sponsors would be eligible, and that 70 percent of eligible former sponsors would complete the 

survey. 

2. Initial Contacts 

During the second week of October, the selected former sponsors were sent a letter and the 

study brochure via overnight delivery. The letter informed the former sponsors that they would 

be contacted by telephone for an interview about their experiences in sponsoring the SFSP, and 

about their reasons for leaving the program. Within days of receiving the letter, three 

organizations contacted MPR with the information that they did not fit the eligibility 

requirements because they had not been sponsors in 2000. During the next several days, 

approximately six letters were returned to MPR because of incorrect addresses. MPR locators 

were able to obtain a correct address or telephone number for all six letters. 
A.22

3. Telephone Survey and Followup 

On October 15, 2001, three MPR executive interviewers (interviewers experienced in 

talking with program staff) and their supervisor participated in a 3-hour training session on 

administering the interview of former sponsors. All three interviewers had conducted interviews 

for the sponsor survey and therefore were familiar with the SFSP. A substantial amount of 

training time was devoted to determining the eligibility status of the program, and to identifying 

the most knowledgeable respondent. The interviewers were coached on asking additional 

questions to obtain this information.6

Interviewing began on October 16, 2001, and concluded on November 16, 2001, with 

131 completed interviews. The average interview length was 20 minutes. 

MPR obtained an 89 percent response rate (131 interviews of former sponsors out of 

148 eligible). Only one respondent no longer was on the staff of the selected former sponsor. 

During the interviews, 12 sponsors were deemed ineligible because they had been sponsors in 

2001, had not been sponsors in 2000, or no longer were in operation. Most of the former 

sponsors were cooperative and did not find the interview burdensome; however, there were three 

refusals. In three cases, the interviewers successfully reached the program (and thus knew that 

the respondents were eligible) but were unable to reach the most knowledgeable person. The 

interviewers were unable to complete interviews in 11 cases mainly because no one was 

knowledgeable enough to answer any of the survey questions. 

Two factors may explain the higher-than-expected response rate. It probably helped that the 

interview was brief. It is also possible that the fall was a better time to attempt this type of 

interview than was the summer, when the pretest was attempted. 

Completed surveys were edited and coded by professional survey staff before being sent to 

the quality control and data entry departments. In data entry, the numeric data were entered into 

a specially created program and were 100-percent verified. In addition, all open-ended responses 

were entered into an Excel spreadsheet, to be coded by research staff. The data were then 

cleaned, and a data file was produced. The final results are shown in Table A.9. 

E. DATA CLEANING FOR KEY SPONSOR AND SITE VARIABLES 

In the process of analyzing the various datasets, additional data cleaning occurred. In 

particular, consistency between the sponsor interviews and applications and between the sponsor 

and site interviews was checked (for key variables). This section documents the procedures used 

 6

If the interviewer was informed that the most knowledgeable person had left to take another 

job, the case was referred to MPR senior project staff, who decided whether to allow the interviewer 

to interview the person who had left. Only one interview was completed with someone no longer 

employed by the former sponsor.
A.23

TABLE A.9 

RESULTS OF SURVEY OF FORMER SPONSORS

Final Status Total Sample 

Complete 

Telephone 130 

Telephone—respondent not currently on staff 1 

Ineligible 

Sponsor in 2001 4 

Not a sponsor in 2000 7 

Organization no longer in existence 1 

Final Refusal 2 

Final Refusal—Unknown Eligibility 1 

Unable to Reach Respondent 

Known eligible 3 

No knowledgeable person on staff 11 

Final Status Total 160 

Total Completes 131 

in the data cleaning of the following key variables in the sponsor and site data: (1) sponsor type, 

(2) open or enrolled status of sites, and (3) type of meal preparation. 

Sponsor type is a key variable in this analysis. Although Chapter II focuses on this variable 

as measured in the Sponsor-Site Database, the variable as measured in the sponsor survey also is 

used in many analyses. However, respondents to the sponsor interview did not always know the 

category to which their program belonged. The study adhered to the following rules for cleaning 

the data from the sponsor survey: (1) sponsors who said their type was not any of the specified 

options or who gave multiple answers were coded on the basis of data from sponsor application 

or sponsor lists provided by the states, the organization name, or a review of their hard-copy 

instrument, as needed; (2) senior staff reviewed each instance in which sponsors’ responses 

differed from their applications (in all but one instance, the application category was determined 

to be correct); and (3) all Upward Bound programs were classified as residential camps, as that 

classification is most consistent with FNS policies. Two sponsors for which application forms 

were missing were found to have been incorrectly classified both in the sponsor and site 

interviews; they were residential camps but had reported themselves as nonprofit organizations. 
A.24

The sponsor interview asked sponsors how many of their sites are open, and how many are 

enrolled sites (that is, sites serving only children enrolled in a program). All the sites of 

sponsors that were camps or National Youth Sports Programs (NYSPs) were classified as camp 

sites or NYSP sites, respectively, regardless of how the sponsors answered those questions. For 

other sponsors, the responses to questions about open/enrolled status in the sponsor and site 

interviews were compared. The data were inconsistent for about 10 percent of sites. In general, 

the site data were recoded to match the sponsor interview.7 In a few cases, however, the sponsor 

data were revised because both the sponsor application and the site interview suggested that the 

sponsor interview data were incorrect. 

Data on type of meal preparation (on-site preparation, central kitchen preparation, school 

food authority vendor, or private vendor) were reported by sponsors and by site supervisors. The 

instructions on the self-administered sponsor instrument were not specific as to whether sponsors 

could indicate multiple answers or only one response, but in the telephone interviews, only one 

response was permitted. The category of “both on-site preparation and central kitchen” was 

added for the sponsor data, because it was sometimes marked on the self-administered surveys; it 

should be interpreted as meaning that some of the sponsor’s sites prepared meals on site, and that 

other sites received meals from a central kitchen.8 Because this response was not permitted in 

the telephone interviews, these data may understate the proportion of sponsors who used both 

central kitchens and on-site preparation and may overstate the proportions who use only on-site 

preparation or central kitchens. 

One edit made to sponsor data on meal preparation was to recode six single-site sponsors 

who reported using a central kitchen to on-site preparation. In addition, one sponsor who coded 

both “school food authority vendor” and “private vendor” was recoded as just “school food 

authority vendor.”

9

 One large sponsor reported using self-preparation but also had reported 

elsewhere using central kitchens for a subset of sites; this sponsor was recoded as “both on-site 

preparation and central kitchen.”

 7

In all cases in which the site data were recoded, the sponsor reported that all its sites were 

open, but the site supervisor reported that the site was enrolled. We suspect that these sites may 

have served an enrolled program, such as a summer school, but also were open to the 

community. However, the misperception of the site supervisors does create some concern about 

how “open” the sites truly were. It is also possible that a site was a “restricted open” site, which 

is a new category and thus likely to lead to some confusion. 

8

For the purposes of this study, meals that were delivered from a central kitchen but were 

warmed on site were considered to have been prepared by a central kitchen. The meals were 

categorized in this way because, at the site level, only one type of meal preparation could be 

coded. 

9

In rare instances (with state approval), sponsors may use multiple vendors or even serve 

vended meals at some sites and prepare meals at other sites. In the few instances of this in the 

sample, sponsors appear to have reported the most common type of meal preparation method. 
A.25

After their initial cleaning, the sponsors’ responses were compared with the site supervisors’

responses; if the two did not match, both instruments and the sponsor applications were 

reviewed. As with open/enrolled status, about 10 percent of sites provided information that 

conflicted with the sponsor data. Often, it appeared that the site supervisor accurately reported 

that the food came from elsewhere but misreported the source; in such cases, the sponsor 

information seemed likely to be more accurate, particularly when it also was confirmed by the 

sponsor application. In a few cases, however, the sponsor data were revised; in these cases, the 

site and application information indicated a different response, or the hard-copy instrument 

provided conflicting information. At three school-sponsored sites, there was clear evidence that 

meals were prepared on site by a private vendor; in these cases, the site supervisors reported “onsite preparation,” whereas the sponsors reported using a “private vendor.” This apparent 

discrepancy was left as is, because of the way that skip patterns in the instruments follow from 

these questions. 

F. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SFSP 2001 SPONSOR-SITE DATABASE 

As part of the SFSP Implementation Study, MPR created a database with information on all 

SFSP sponsors and their food service sites in 2001. Creating this database required extensive 

interaction with SFSP state agencies to obtain lists of sponsors and sites with the types of 

information required for the database, and to resolve discrepancies in the lists received. MPR 

would like to acknowledge the very high level of cooperation on this endeavor. After the lists 

were received, MPR staff extensively checked and edited the lists, and then data-entered the 

information into a standard format. 

This discussion begins with a description of procedures for collecting and editing the data 

for the SFSP 2001 Sponsor-Site Database. The second section describes the database, which is 

in Access format. Data from the database provided control totals for development of survey 

weights. 

1. Data Collection and Editing Procedures 

a. Request for Administrative Data from State Contacts 

As noted, on August 28, 2001, MPR mailed a letter to all SFSP state administrators to 

inform them of the forthcoming request for various lists of administrative data.10 The list 

requests were outlined in a one-page form, “2001 Information From States,” that asked the state 

administrators for the date on which they would have final 2001 site information, sponsor 

information, and meal counts. In addition to the mailing, all 54 state administrators were 

contacted by telephone in September. Although the main purpose of the calls was to schedule 

interviews with the state administrators, MPR also followed up on its requests to receive lists by 

 10In the case of states in which the FNS regional offices run the program, we contacted the 

appropriate regional office. 
A.26

November, and to receive final meal counts by December. Most of the state administrators 

reported that their site and sponsor lists would be available between late September and early 

November, and that their final meal counts would be available in early December. 

MPR requested the following information: 

• Final 2001 site list that included site name (linked to a sponsor), address, and 

telephone number; starting and ending dates of operation; average daily attendance 

for each meal served; types of meals served; and, if available, information on whether 

the site was an open, enrolled, or camp site 

• Final 2001 sponsor list that included sponsor name, address, and telephone number; 

starting and ending dates of operation, sponsor type (school, government, nonprofit, 

NYSP, or residential camp); meals served; and number of sites 

• Final 2001 meal counts, by type of meal served, for each sponsor 

Later that fall, MPR also asked the state administrators to identify their “new” sponsors, defined 

as sponsors that participated in the SFSP in fiscal year 2001 but had not participated in fiscal 

year 2000. 

b. Receipt of Lists 

MPR received site and sponsor lists from all 54 state agencies during the fall or early winter 

(Table A.10). All the state agencies also provided final meal counts, with the first received in 

October 2001, and the last on January 30, 2002. Professional survey staff used a tracking system 

to track submitted and outstanding lists on an ongoing basis. Any state agencies that did not 

provide lists by November 1, 2001, received E-mails, with follow-up calls and faxes, as needed. 

MPR project staff held daily meetings to receive updates of the lists. MPR recognized how 

much it was asking of the state agency staff, especially staff in agencies that maintained records 

in a format that made it difficult to send the requested information. MPR communicated its 

appreciation to the agency staff. 

c. Format and Quality of the Lists 

Lists were received in many different formats. Some were sent electronically, in Excel, 

Word, or Access; others were hard-copy versions sent by fax or through the mail. Although 

some states’ site lists were embedded in their sponsor lists, most states maintained separate site 

and sponsor lists. 

After receiving the site lists, MPR staff examined them to determine whether they contained, 

at minimum, a site name, address, and indication of its sponsor. If this information was missing, 

MPR called the state agency to obtain it. At the end of November, MPR compiled a report 

assessing the overall quality of site lists received to date; the assessment was based on a 

preliminary review of the lists. All but three states’ lists had street and town information; two of 
A.27

the three had information for some of the sites. Eight lists did not include zip code information, 

and five had zip codes only (no address) for some sites. Nearly half (21 lists) had no telephone 

numbers, and 5 provided telephone numbers for only some sites. 

TABLE A.10 

NUMBER OF SPONSOR AND SITE LISTS RECEIVED, BY MONTH 

Month Sponsor Lists Site Lists 

Septembera 34 27 

October 11 14 

November 8 10 

December 1 2 

January 0 1 

a

Includes one sponsor list that was received in August. 

d. Reconciling Discrepancies in the Lists 

To obtain complete, accurate information, MPR staff conducted several checks after 

receiving the lists. The process began with a count of the number of sponsors on the site list, and 

a comparison of that number with the number of sponsors on the state’s sponsor list. In the case 

of about 35 states, the 2 numbers did not match because sponsors listed on the site list were not 

included on the sponsor list, or because sponsors on the sponsor list had no sites on the site list 

(or both). In addition, for about 25 states, the number of sites on the sponsor list and the actual 

number of sites obtained from the site list differed. 

MPR telephoned or E-mailed the state agency to resolve these discrepancies. When nearly 

all the data had been provided, MPR used the number of sites on the site list as the final site 

count to resolve remaining discrepancies. Examples of issues encountered include the following: 

• To obtain complete site-level address information for some state agencies’ lists, MPR 

had to search a database constructed from application information and which 

therefore included sites that never opened during the 2001 season. 

• One state agency listed site and sponsor names differently on different lists, thereby 

making it extremely difficult to link sites with sponsors. 

• One state agency indicated that it does not clean out previous years’ data from its 

lists, so the lists would include sites that did not operate in 2001. 
A.28

In the second check, MPR staff compared the number of sponsors that the state contact 

person had provided during the state administrator interview with the number of sponsors listed 

on the 2001 sponsor list. MPR staff called the state contact to resolve any discrepancies between 

the two numbers. The sponsor lists or state interview data were then adjusted, as needed, so that 

the number of sponsors from the two sources was the same. Discrepancies may have arisen for a 

number of reasons. For example: 

• Sponsors that had both vended and self-preparation sites were counted twice on one 

state’s sponsor list, but had been reported as one sponsor during the interview. 

• One sponsor in another state was listed twice on the lists (once for its rural sites and 

once for its urban sites), but was reported in the interview as a single sponsor. 

• Some state administrators had difficulty categorizing sponsors that participated for a 

short time and then stopped participating or closed early. Some state administrators 

included these sponsors on their lists but did not think of them as “current sponsors”

during the interview. 

• Some lists included sponsors that applied but never opened, were subsequently 

determined to be ineligible, or were not approved. These sponsors usually were not 

included in the count reported during the interview but might appear on the lists. 

Many state administrators reported that their sponsor lists were created early in the 

summer and did not reflect actual sponsor participation. 

• In some cases, the information from multiple lists had to be combined (for example, 

one list included the type and number of sites, whereas another included address and 

contact information). Occasionally, two lists differed in the number of sponsors. 

The state contacts were very helpful and cooperative in resolving these discrepancies. They 

informed MPR staff that they benefited from the process, as MPR identified computer errors in 

their report specifications, and errors in list-keeping practices. 

e. Data Entry Specifications 

After assessing the quality and completeness of the lists, MPR professional staff established 

specifications for data entry. Because site lists and sponsor lists were data entered separately, 

MPR created a “Sponsor Link ID number” that it assigned to each sponsor, with the same 

number assigned to all the sponsor’s sites. 

The following information was data entered for all sites: 

• State ID number 

• Sponsor link ID number 

• Site name 
A.29

• Site address 

• Site telephone number 

• Dates of operation—start and end dates for the site’s program 

• Meals served (breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack) 

• Average daily attendance for each meal served 

• Type of site—whether an open site, enrolled site, or camp (residential) 

The following variables were data entered for all sponsors: 

• State ID number 

• Sponsor link ID number 

• Sponsor name 

• Sponsor address 

• Sponsor telephone number 

• Type of sponsor: defined as government = G, school = S, nonprofit = N, NYSP = Y, 

residential camp/Upward Bound = R. Multiple types (as many as three) could be 

entered in this field. 

• Number of sites 

• Dates of operation 

• Meals served—indicators for breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack 

• Meal count: total meal count, by meal, for all months of operation. If provided, total 

meals served was entered. 

• New sponsor 

f. Editing of Lists 

Because each state’s lists came in a different format, they had to be edited, and the location 

on the lists for the information discussed in the preceding section had to be marked by hand so 

that data entry clerks could enter the information into a standardized format. Survey staff 

assigned sponsor link numbers to each sponsor in each state and then marked the lists to indicate 

where each variable appeared on the list, to facilitate data entry. If a state’s list was missing a 

variable (such as telephone number), that fact was noted at the top of the list. The following 

general rules were applied when editing site lists: 
A.30

• If two addresses were given (P.O. box and street address), the actual address was 

entered. 

• If missing area codes could be determined from other sites or outside information, the 

area code was added. 

• If only one average daily attendance number was given, it was applied only to lunch; 

the list indicated whether other meals were served but did not include the average 

daily attendance number missing for those meals. 

• Any sites that were not approved or that never opened were excluded from both the 

sponsor list and the site list.

• Site type (open, enrolled, or camp) was determined from the information on the state 

agency’s list. If it was missing, the type was left blank. For consistency, the 

following types of sites were coded as follows (if no other information was given): 

(Site type listed) (Coded as) 

Migrant = missing type 

NYSP = enrolled 

Nonresidential day camp = missing type 

College/university = missing type 

Upward Bound = camp 

• If the site list showed two snacks, the average daily attendance numbers for the two 

were added and divided by two for an average daily attendance, so that only one 

average daily attendance number was entered for snacks. 

• If a sponsor’s only site had no information on meals, dates of operation, or telephone 

number (but had the same address as the sponsor), the sponsor’s meals served, dates 

of operation, and telephone number were used. 

• If differences in the number of sites could not be reconciled even after multiple 

discussions with the state administrator, the number of sites entered was based on the 

site sheets or information provided by the state agency, rather than on the counts 

given on the sponsor list. 

In addition to these guidelines, special circumstances were dealt with on a state-by-state basis. 

As with the site lists, the sponsor lists had to be reviewed and edited before data entry. 

Complete sponsor lists included information about the sponsors (name, address, dates of 

operation, number of sites, and so on) and meal count information, which usually came from a 

different office and often was provided on a separate list. The meal count information was 
A.31

appended to the sponsor lists prior to data entry. During preparation of the sponsor lists for data 

entry, some sponsors were seen to have missing meal counts. In about 25 states, at least 

1 sponsor was not listed on the meal count list, was listed but had a meal count of 0, or had meal 

counts but was not on the sponsor list. 

To resolve these discrepancies, MPR telephoned or E-mailed the state contact to obtain 

more information. MPR staff were instructed to ask specifically whether the sponsor had 

operated sites in summer 2001, had served children but never filed a meal claim, or had a meal 

claim pending. Sponsors that had never opened or that did not serve any children SFSP meals 

were removed from the sponsor database. More generally, after discussions with ERS, MPR 

decided that meal count data would be the final determinant of sponsorship. For example, a 

sponsor with two agreement numbers, separate meal claims, but the same name in both cases 

was counted as two sponsors. Conversely, if the state agency counted an organization as two 

sponsors (for example, City of XX Self-prep and City of XX Vended), but the organization filed 

only one claim, then the number of meals was combined, and the sponsor was counted only 

once.11

In addition to these cases, the following rules were used for editing sponsor lists: 

• Most sponsors had a single designation of sponsor type (government, school, 

nonprofit, NYSP, residential camp). However, some states allowed a single sponsor 

to be assigned multiple type codes (most often, government and NYSP when the 

program was run at a public university). After checking with FNS, MPR decided to 

allow multiple-type listing, with as many as three types per sponsor, but to count the 

sponsor only once. This situation occurred in only one state and affected only five 

sponsors. 

• If a sponsor had only one site, the state agency did not provide specific information 

on the sponsor, and MPR had more detailed site-level information, the information 

from the site list was applied to the sponsor. 

• If a sponsor’s list did not contain dates of operation, MPR took the earliest site 

opening date and the latest site closing date from that sponsor’s site information and 

used those dates for the sponsor’s dates of operation. 

• If a sponsor listed morning and afternoon snacks on its meal counts, the two snacks 

were added and one number was entered. 

• “Seconds” on a sponsor’s list were added to the original meal count. 

 11Out of more than 4,000 sponsors nationwide, 25 had applied to the SFSP program, 

operated as part of SFSP for the summer, but did not file meal claims for various reasons. These 

sponsors were included in the database with a special code, but they and their sites are omitted 

from all tabulations in this report. 
A.32

• MPR entered a total meal count number, if the state agency provided the number. If 

it did not, MPR entered the meal counts for the specific meals but did not total them. 

If the state agency provided the meal counts by month (which often occurred), the 

meal counts were added to obtain summer totals. 

• Year-round schools’ meal counts for all months of operation were added to produce a 

total count. 

• A sponsor that had operated under a different organization name and that operated in 

2001 as a new entity/organization was considered a “new” sponsor. A sponsor that 

operated in previous years but not in 2000 and that operated in 2001 was considered 

“new.”

In addition to these guidelines, special situations were dealt with on a state-by-state or sponsorby-sponsor basis. 

g. Tracking Systems and Data Checks 

Due to the size of the lists and the extensive alphabetical character fields (name and address 

fields), MPR did not verify data entry of the lists. Instead, MPR staff visually spot-checked each 

state’s site and sponsor lists while conducting SAS checks for out-of-range and questionable 

data. Staff used spot-checking to determine whether any systematic problems were occurring. If 

a systematic mistake was identified, the list was returned to data entry, and the entire list was 

reentered. Automatic SAS checks were then run and corrections made, as needed. A tracking 

system was established to ensure that all site and sponsor lists were spot-checked and corrected, 

and that SAS checks were reviewed and corrections made, if necessary. 

2. The Linked Sponsor-Site Database 

After the data files were checked and cleaned, they were loaded into the Access database. 

All sponsor and site data are contained in a single linked database. There are a total of 

4,397 sponsors in the Access database. Twenty-five sponsors did not file meal claims but did 

participate in the SFSP. (Their applications were approved, and state staff monitored them in 

2001.) These sponsors are included in the Access database, with a flag indicating that they did 

not file claims. The database lists a total of 35,530 sites (including those from sponsors that did 

not claim any meals). 
APPENDIX B 

SAMPLING AND SAMPLE WEIGHTS 

B.3 

A. SAMPLE DESIGN AND ESTIMATION 

This section documents the sampling and weighting procedures for the Summer Food 

Service Program (SFSP) Implementation Study. The sample design for the study was intended 

to achieve the following goals: 

• The use of a two-stage sample design that produces a linkable analytic dataset of 

sponsors and sites. This design first selects a national probability sample of sponsors 

and then follows with the selection of one or more sites from each sponsor. 

• Probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) sampling procedures to increase the precision 

of estimates involving total meals served. Sponsors, former sponsors, and sites were 

selected based on a measure of size relative to the estimated number of total meals 

served during their period of operation. 

• Designing the sample so that accurate statements can be made for both the 

“percentage of meals served” and “percentage of programs” (sponsors, former 

sponsors, or sites). 

• Obtaining a total of 120 new and continuing completed sponsor interviews to yield an 

average coefficient of variation (CV) of 10 percent across the survey characteristics 

for estimates of “percent of meals served” by sponsors with particular characteristics. 

• Obtaining a total of 150 completed site visits to yield an average CV of 10 percent 

across the survey characteristics for estimates of “percentage of meals served” by 

sites with particular characteristics. 

• Obtaining a total of 100 completed former sponsor interviews to yield an average CV 

of 10 percent across the survey characteristics. 

B. SPONSOR SAMPLE SELECTION 

The target population included all sponsors approved for the 2001 SFSP in the 48 states and 

the District of Columbia that had at least one site operating for a minimum of one week between 

June 9 and August 31, 2001. 

The sampling frame of sponsors included (1) a list of sponsors approved for the 2000 SFSP 

in the 48 states and the District of Columbia that were open at least one week between June 9 

and August 31, and (2) a list of expected new sponsors that had completed applications or 

attended training to be SFSP sponsors in 2001. 

The sponsors were stratified into seven primary strata based on FNS region and average 

daily attendance. Next, each of the seven primary strata were further divided into substrata. A 

substratum was defined by (1) the state of the sponsor, and (2) whether the sponsor had one site 

or more than one site. This yielded a total of 98 substrata (48 states and the District of Columbia 

times 2 site categories), or 2 substrata per state. Sponsors were allocated to each substratum in 

proportion to the size of that substratum. 
B.4 

The sample of sponsors was chosen using Chromy’s (1979) sequential PPS sampling 

procedure to obtain a representative sample of 138 sponsors. The use of a PPS sampling 

procedure gives larger sponsors a higher chance of selection to improve the statistical precision 

in the survey data by producing survey weights that are inversely proportional to the reported 

quantities. In developing the sample sizes needed to obtain the 138 completed sponsor 

interviews, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) accounted for (1) an estimated 92 percent 

response rate among selected sponsors, (2) approximately 10 percent of prior-year sponsors 

dropping out of the program, and (3) an expected 10 percent of the sampling frame being new 

sponsors. Of the 138 sponsors in the sample, 130 were continuing sponsors and 8 were new 

sponsors. 

Sponsors were selected with probability proportional to the square root of the estimated 

number of meals served.1

 The square root is the preferred method when estimating both the 

percentage of entities (such as sponsors) with a certain characteristic, as well as the percentage of 

participants or services provided (in this case, meals served) by entities with a certain 

characteristic. Sponsors were ordered within substratum by zip code and meal counts before 

sampling to ensure a representative sample of sponsors. 

After sample selection, the primary sample cases were removed from the frame and a second 

set of replacement sample was selected from each of the substrata in the same way as the first. 

The second sample was paired with the first such that each sample case had a replacement in the 

same geographic area with a similar number of sites and meal counts. This replacement was 

used for sponsors who refused to participate in the study during their initial contact. 

C. SITE SAMPLE SELECTION 

For the second stage of selection, the sponsors selected in the first stage were asked to 

provide a list of their member sites. Because of the tight timing of the study, MPR could not 

wait until complete lists of sites from all 138 prior-year and new sponsors were available to 

conduct the sampling and begin the site visits. Instead, sampling of sites was conducted on a 

batch basis. Soon after a site list was obtained from a sampled sponsor, the site (or sites) was 

selected and a site visit was scheduled. 

The sample selection procedure again used Chromy’s sequential PPS sampling procedure to 

obtain a representative sample of 178 sites from the 138 sponsors selected for the study. For 

sponsors with only one site, that one site was automatically selected for sample. For all other 

sponsors, Chromy’s PPS procedure was used to designate one to four primary sites per sponsor 

(based on the size of the sponsor). The results of the allocation were as shown in Table B.1. 

 1

Because the sample was selected before the total number of meals served in 2001 could be 

known, size was estimated using total meals served in 2000 for sponsors that operated in 2000, 

and using the sponsor’s estimate of the number of meals that would be served in 2001 for new 

sponsors. 
B.5 

The sample size of 178 sites was chosen to account for (1) an estimated 92 percent response 

rate from selected sites (some were expected to refuse a visit or close before the visit); (2) 

approximately 10 percent of sponsors dropping out of the program, with the result that their 

site(s) would become ineligible for interview; and (3) approximately 3 percent of sponsors would 

not open the selected site. 

TABLE B.1 

SITE ALLOCATION TO SPONSORS

Number of Sites 

Allocated per Sponsor 

Number 

of Sponsors 

Number 

of Sites 

1 115 115 

2 13 26 

3 3 9 

4 7 28 

Total 138 178 

Sites were selected with probability proportional to the square root of the estimated number 

of meals served. As was used in the first stage of selection, the square root of the total number of 

meals the sponsor expected to serve at the site was chosen as a size measure. Similarly, sites 

were ordered by zip code and meal counts before sampling to ensure that the sampled sites were 

representative. 

At the time of sampling, two replacements were selected for each site to prepare for sites 

that MPR would not be able to visit in time. Thus, sponsors with two sites allocated had a total 

of six sites selected (one primary and two replacements for each site allocated). If a sponsor did 

not have enough sites to cover the replacements, the number of replacements was reduced to the 

number that the sponsor had available. 

To ensure that the visits represented the range of program operations, MPR selected a 

random day of the week within the days that the operation was open for the site observation to 

take place. The day of week served as a “target” date for scheduling the interviewers. In 

addition, field visits were scheduled such that approximately 34 percent of programs were 

observed in the early stage (that is, the first third of the program), 33 percent in the middle stage, 

and 33 percent in the ending stage. 

D. MEALTIME SELECTION 

A decision was made to observe two meals at each site that served two or more meals: 

(1) lunch, and (2) one other meal. Thus, the lunch meal at each site was selected with certainty. 
B.6 

If the site served two meals, then the other meal was selected with certainty. For sites that served 

all three meals, we randomly selected either breakfast or supper for observation in addition to 

lunch. After sample selection of meals, 35.5 percent of the sites had only the lunch meal 

selected, 56.4 percent had the breakfast and lunch meals selected, and 8.1 percent had the lunch 

and supper meals selected. 

E. FORMER SPONSOR SAMPLE SELECTION 

The target population included all sponsors approved for and operating the SFSP in 2000 in 

the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia that did not operate the SFSP in 2001. To 

compile the sample frame, each SFSP state agency was asked in fall 2001 to provide a list of 

sponsors who participated in the SFSP in 2000 but did not do so in 2001. States were instructed 

to include sponsors that changed status from a sponsor to a site under a different sponsor. 

Sponsors that continued to feed children but did not participate in the program were also 

included. The states were instructed to include the sponsor’s name, address, contact person’s 

name, phone number, and sponsor type on the list. This information was matched to last year’s 

sponsor list (2000) to obtain additional information such as the operation starting and ending 

date, number of sites, and total meals served during the dates of operation. There were a total of 

367 former sponsors on the sampling frame. Only three states reported that they had no sponsors 

from the previous year that had left the program. 

The former sponsors were stratified into seven primary strata based on FNS region and 

average daily attendance. Next, each of the seven primary strata were further divided into 

“substrata.” A substratum was defined by (1) the state of the sponsor and (2) whether the 

sponsor had one site or more than one site. This yielded a total of 98 substrata (48 states and the 

District of Columbia times 2 site categories), or 2 substrata per state. Given the small size of the 

sampling frame, this level of substratification may seem excessive. However, substratification 

variables should be thought of as more like “sort” variables, not specified strata. The 

substratification within strata allows for additional controls on selecting a random sample across 

different domains. The randomized allocation and rounding technique enables us to obtain the 

same results as we would by sorting the data and then selecting a systematic sample of cases. At 

the same time, greater control is obtained since a pre-selected sample size is selected for the 

domain before sampling. 

The sample was chosen using Chromy’s (1979) sequential probability-proportional-to-size 

(PPS) sampling procedure to obtain a representative sample of 160 former sponsors. The use of 

a PPS sampling procedure gave larger former sponsors a higher chance of selection to improve 

the statistical precision in the survey data by producing survey weights that are inversely 

proportional to the reported quantities. In developing the sample size needed to obtain 

100 completed former sponsor interviews, MPR accounted for (1) an estimated 90 percent 

eligibility rate among sponsors in the sampling frame (former sponsors are ineligible if they were 

not sponsors in the summer of 2000 or, conversely, are actual sponsors in the summer of 2001) 

and (2) an estimated 70 percent response rate among eligible former sponsors. Thus, the sample 

size selected was 160, since 160 x 0.90 = 144 eligible sponsors, and 144 x 0.70 = 100 completes. 
B.7 

Former sponsors were selected with probability proportional to the square root of the 

number of SFSP meals they served in 2000, as reported by the state agencies. The square root is 

the preferred method when estimating both the percentage of entities (such as former sponsors) 

with a certain characteristic as well as the percentage of participants or services provided (in this 

case, meals served) by entities with a certain characteristic. Out of the 367 sponsors in the 

sample frame, 27 were sufficiently large that they would have probability of selection greater 

than 1. These former sponsors were selected with certainty and removed from the frame. The 

remaining former sponsors were ordered within substratum by zip code and meal counts before 

sampling to ensure a representative sample of former sponsors. Then, 133 additional former 

sponsors were selected. 

F. ESTIMATION 

Because of the different levels of analysis for this study, there are six different sets of 

weights. These include sponsor, site, mealtime, plate, and plate waste weights, as well as former 

sponsor weights. 

1. Sponsor Weighting 

a. Sponsor Base Weight 

The first step in weighting the sponsor sample was to calculate the sponsor sampling weight. 

The sponsor sampling weight BWspon (i) for the ith sampled sponsor was calculated as the inverse 

of the probability of selection or: 

( )

( ) spon

total

S

BW (i) = n Si

+ ,

where: 

• S(+) is the sum of the square root of total meals for all eligible sponsors on the 

sampling frame 

• S(i) is the square root of total meals for sponsor i

• ntotal is the total number of sponsors selected, or 138 

b. Sponsor Nonresponse-Adjusted Weight 

The next step in the sponsor weighting was to adjust for nonresponse occurring during the 

survey interview. Complete response for a sponsor means that MPR (1) determined whether the 

sponsor was eligible for interview (that is, whether it was in operation for at least one week 

during June, July, or August of 2001); and (2) obtained interview data from the eligible sponsor. 

The nonresponse adjustments were conducted within two classes defined by whether the sponsor 

had one site or more than one site. 
B.8 

The nonresponse adjustment adjusted the base weight to account for data loss from sponsors 

who did not complete an interview. The nonresponse adjustment was defined as follows: 

• For records where the sponsor completed a questionnaire, the questionnaire 

completion nonresponse adjustment ADJquest(ci) for record i in class c is defined as: 

1

1

() ()

( )

() ()

c

c

n

eligspon spon

i

quest n

questresp spon

i

ci BW ci

ADJ ci

ci BW ci

δ

δ

=

=

=

∑

∑

,

where BWspon(ci) is the sponsor base weight for record i in class c, δ eligspon(ci) is 

equal to 1 for eligible sponsors and 0 otherwise, and δ questresp(ci) is equal to 1 for 

sponsors who responded to the questionnaire and 0 otherwise. 

• For records where the sponsor did not complete the questionnaire, the questionnaire 

completion nonresponse adjustment ADJquest (ci) is equal to 0. 

• For ineligible sponsors, the questionnaire completion nonresponse adjustment factor 

ADJquest (ci) is equal to 1. 

The nonresponse-adjusted weight W1 (i) was then calculated as the product of the base 

weight and the questionnaire completion nonresponse adjustment factor as follows: 

1( ) () W i) = BW (i ADJ ci spon quest × . 

c. Final Sponsor Weights 

Because two types of estimates were computed for this survey—the percentage of sponsors 

with a certain characteristic and the percentage of total meals served by sponsors with a certain 

characteristic—two different final weights were computed using the nonresponse-adjusted 

weight computed above. For the first type of tabulation, a poststratification adjustment was done 

to ensure that the survey-weighted count of sponsors equals the population count of sponsors 

approved for the 2001 SFSP. For the second type of tabulation, the poststratification adjustment 

was made to ensure that the survey-weighted count of the total number of meals served equals 

the total number of meals served by all sponsors approved for the 2001 SFSP.2

 2

Poststratification totals were derived from the 2001 SFSP Sponsor-Site Database, which is 

described in Appendix A. 
B.9 

Final Sponsor Weight. The sponsor-adjusted final weight reflects the total number of 

sponsors approved for the 2001 SFSP. The poststratification cells consist of the types of 

sponsor—school, government, nonprofit, and camp/NYSP. (Camp and NYSP cells were 

collapsed together because of small cell size.) 

If Ck was the poststratification total number of sponsors for collapsed sponsor type k, then 

the poststratification adjustment ADJsp(i) for sponsors in that collapsed sponsor type is: 

1

1

( )

( ) k

k

sp n

i

C ADJ i

W i

=

=

∑

,

where nk is the number of sampled sponsors in sponsor type k, and W1 (i) is the nonresponseadjusted sponsor weight. 

The final sponsor weight FSPW(i) was then calculated as the product of the nonresponse 

weight W1(i) and the sponsor poststratification adjustment factor as follows: 

1 ( () () FSPW i) = W i ADJ i × sp . 

This weight is used to analyze sponsor level data. 

Final Quantity-Adjusted Sponsor Weight. The quantity-adjusted final weight reflects the 

total number of meals served by sponsors approved for the 2001 FSP. The poststratification cells 

consist of the type of sponsor. 

If Tk is the poststratification total for the total number of meals served by sponsor type k, 

then the total meal poststratification adjustment ADJtl_ml(i) for sponsors in that sponsor type is: 

_

1

1

( )

( ) k

k

tl ml n

ki

i

T ADJ i

W iT

=

=

∑

,

where Tki is the total count of meals served for sponsor i in sponsor type k, nk is the number of 

sampled sponsors in sponsor type k, and W1 (i) is the nonresponse-adjusted sponsor weight. 

The final quantity-adjusted sponsor meal weight FMLW(i) was then calculated as the 

product of the nonresponse weight W1(i) and the total meal poststratification adjustment factor as 

follows: 

1 _ ( () () FMLW i) = W i ADJ i × tl ml . 
B.10 

This weight is then multiplied by the estimated number of meals served by each sponsor, and this 

product is used to weight the sponsor-level data by total meals served. 

2. Site Weighting 

a. Site Base Weight 

The first step in weighting the site sample was to calculate the sampling weight of each site. 

Since this was the second stage of selection, the sampling weight of each site depends on the 

probability of selection of the sponsor at the first stage. The base weight of the sponsor was used 

in calculating the site weight (as opposed to the final weight), because a sponsor could refuse to 

be interviewed but could allow a site visit. 

Each site has a unique sampling weight. The site sampling weight BWsite (ij) was calculated 

differently for sites where the sponsors were automatically assigned a particular number of sites 

or randomly allocated a particular number of sites. 

For the sites that belonged to sponsors that were automatically assigned a number of sites, 

(129 sites total), the site sampling weight BWsite (ij) for the jth sampled site from the ith sampled 

sponsor was calculated as the inverse of the probability of selection or: 

2 ( ) ( ) ( ) site spon

i

S i

BW (ij) = BW i m S ij

× ,

where: 

• BWspon (i) is the sponsor base weight for sponsor i calculated in the first stage of 

sample selection

• S(i)2 is calculated by summing the square root of total meals for all eligible sites for a 

particular sponsor

• S(ij) is the square root of total meals for site j in sponsor i 

• mi = 1 for sites where the number of sites equals 1, and mi = 4 for the sites where the 

sponsor was “capped” at a maximum of 4 sites each

For the remaining sites, the site sampling weight BWsite (ij) for the jth sampled site from the 

ith sampled sponsor was calculated as the inverse of the probability of selection or: 

( )

( )

rem site spon

rem

S

BW (ij) = BW m S ij

++

× ,
B.11 

where: 

• BWspon (i) is the sponsor base weight for sponsor i calculated in the first stage of 

sample selection

• Srem(++) is the sum of the square root of total meals for all eligible sites on the 

sampling frame where the sponsor’s number of sites was randomly allocated

• S(ij) is the square root of total meals for site j in sponsor i 

• mrem is the total number of sites allocated to sponsors remaining after the sites in the 

first step were removed (49, or 178 - 129)

b. Site Nonresponse-Adjusted Weight 

The next step was to adjust for nonresponse occurring during the site visit. Complete 

response for a site means that MPR (1) determined whether the site was eligible for interview 

(that is, whether it was in operation for at least 1 week during June, July, or August of 2001); and 

(2) obtained interview data from site managers for eligible sites. The nonresponse adjustments 

were conducted within two classes defined by whether the sponsor had one site or more than one 

site. 

The nonresponse adjustment adjusted the base weight to account for data loss from sites that 

did not allow a visit. The nonresponse adjustment was defined as follows: 

• For records where the site completed an interview, the questionnaire completion 

nonresponse adjustment ADJquest(ci) for record i in class c is defined as: 

1

1

() ()

( )

() ()

c

c

n

eligsite site

i

quest n

questresp site

i

ci BW ci

ADJ ci

ci BW ci

δ

δ

=

=

=

∑

∑

,

where BWsite(ci) is the baseweight for record i in class c, δ eligsite(ci) is equal to 1 for 

eligible sites and 0 otherwise, and δ questresp(ci) is equal to 1 for sites that responded to 

the interview and 0 otherwise. 

• For records where the site did not complete the questionnaire, the questionnaire 

completion nonresponse adjustment ADJquest (ci) is equal to 0. 

• For ineligible records, the questionnaire completion nonresponse adjustment factor 

ADJquest (ci) is equal to 1.
B.12 

The nonresponse-adjusted weight W1 (ij) was then calculated as the product of the base 

weight and the questionnaire completion nonresponse adjustment factor as follows: 

1( ) () W ij) = BW (ij ADJ ci site quest × . 

c. Final Site Weights 

Because two types of estimates were to be computed for this survey—the percentage of sites 

with a certain characteristic and the percentage of total meals served by sites with a certain 

characteristic—MPR computed two different final weights using the nonresponse-adjusted 

weight computed above. For the first type of tabulation, a poststratification adjustment was done 

to ensure that the survey-weighted count of sites equals the population count of sites in the 2001 

SFSP. For the second type of tabulation, the poststratification adjustment was made to ensure 

that the survey-weighted count of the number of meals served equals the total number of meals 

served by all sites. This number was equal to the total number of meals served by all sponsors 

approved for the 2001 SFSP, which was used in the sponsor-level final quantity-adjusted 

weight.3

Final Site Weight. The site-adjusted final weight reflects the total number of sites approved 

for the 2001 SFSP. The poststratification cells consist of the type of sponsor. 

If Ck is the poststratification total of sites operated by sponsor type k, then the 

poststratification adjustment ADJst(i) for sites in that sponsor type is: 

1

1

( )

( ) k

k

st n

i

C ADJ i

W ij

=

=

∑

,

where nk is the number of sampled sites in sponsor type k, and W1 (ij) is the nonresponse-adjusted 

weight. 

The final site weight FSTW(i) was then calculated as the product of the nonresponseadjusted site weight W1(ij) and the site poststratification adjustment factor as follows: 

1 ( ( ) () FSTW ij) = W ij ADJ i × st . 

This weight is used to analyze site-level data. 

 3

As with the sponsor weights, poststratification totals were from the 2001 Sponsor-Site 

Database. 
B.13 

Final Quantity-Adjusted Site Weight. The quantity-adjusted final weight reflects the total 

number of meals served by sponsors approved for the 2001 SFSP. The poststratification cells 

consist of the type of sponsor. 

If Tk is the poststratification total for meals served at sites operated by sponsor type k, then 

the total meal poststratification adjustment ADJtl_ml(i) for sites in that sponsor type is: 

_

1

1

( )

( ) k

k

tl ml n

kij

i

T ADJ i

W ij T

=

=

∑

,

where Tkij is the total count of meals served for sponsor i, site j in sponsor type k, nk is the 

number of sampled sites in sponsor type k, and W1(ij) is the nonresponse-adjusted weight. 

The final quantity-adjusted meal weight FSTMLW(ij) is then calculated as the product of the 

nonresponse-adjusted site weight W1(ij) and the total meal poststratification adjustment factor as 

follows: 

1 _ ( ( ) () FSTMLW ij) = W ij ADJ i × tl ml . 

This weight is then multiplied by the estimated number of meals served at that site, and the 

product is used to weight the site-level data by total meals served. 

3. Meal Weighting 

The purpose of this section is to document how meal-level analysis weights were created. 

There were two levels of meal sampling. First, specific mealtimes (such as breakfast, lunch, or 

supper) were selected for visit at the site. Second, individual plates and “plate wastes” were 

independently randomly selected at the site for observation. To begin weighting the data for 

meals, the dataset of sites was expanded into a dataset containing one record per mealtime visit. 

a. Mealtime Visit Weight 

The first step in meal weighting was to calculate the mealtime visit weight. This weight was 

calculated differently for lunch meals than for breakfast and supper meals because lunch meals 

were selected with certainty. 

For lunch meals, the mealtime visit weight Wmeal (v) for the vth sampled mealtime visit is 

equal to the final site weight (not quantity adjusted): 

W meal(v) = FSTW ij ( ). 
B.14 

For breakfast meals or supper meals, the mealtime visit weight Wmeal (v) for the vth sampled 

mealtime visit was calculated as the product of the site weight and the inverse of the probability 

of selection of the meal, or: 

() () ( ) 1

B D

meal

Ii Ii

W (v) = FSTW ij +

× ,

where FSTW(ij) is the final site weight, IB(i) equals 1 if the site served breakfast and 0 otherwise, 

and ID(i) equals 1 if the site served supper and 0 otherwise. 

b. Mealtime Visit-Adjusted Weight 

The next step was to adjust for nonresponse to the mealtime. Interviewers missed five 

mealtimes due to inability to locate the site or the meal. Six mealtimes were considered 

ineligible because the sponsor had planned to serve the meal, but the site did not serve the meal 

at the time of the visit. 

The nonresponse adjustment adjusted the mealtime visit weights Wmeal (v) to account for data 

loss from mealtimes that were not visited. The adjustment was calculated within class c defined 

by the type of meal—breakfast, lunch, or supper. The mealtime nonresponse adjustment was 

then defined as follows: 

• For visited mealtimes, the mealtime nonresponse adjustment ADJmeal(cv) for record v

in class c is defined as: 

1

1

( )

( )

() ()

c

c

n

eligmeal meal

i

meal n

respmeal meal

i

W cv

ADJ cv

cv W cv

δ

δ

=

=

=

∑

∑

,

where Wmeal(cv) is the mealtime visit weight for record v in class c, δ eligmeal(cv) is 

equal to 1 for eligible mealtimes and 0 otherwise, and δ respmeal(cv) is equal to 1 for 

“responding” mealtimes and 0 otherwise. 

• For records where the mealtime was not visited, the mealtime nonresponse 

adjustment ADJmeal (cv) is equal to 0. 

• For ineligible meals, the mealtime nonresponse adjustment factor ADJmealt (cv) is 

equal to 1. 
B.15 

The mealtime-visit-adjusted weight Wmealtime (v) was then calculated as the product of the 

mealtime visit weight and the mealtime nonresponse adjustment factor as follows: 

( ) () W v) = W (v ADJ cv mealtime meal meal × . 

4. Plate Weighting 

a. Initial Plate Weight 

The mealtime-visit-adjusted weight calculated above was used to calculate the plate 

observation weights. If sites served a standard meal, interviewers were instructed to randomly 

observe five meals. Otherwise, approximately 10 meals were observed at each site. To begin 

weighting plates, the dataset of meal times was expanded into a dataset containing one record per 

plate observed. 

For all plate observations within a site and mealtime, the plate observation weight was 

calculated as the inverse of the probability of selection of a particular plate during that visit at 

that site at that mealtime, or: 

( )

( ) obs

obs

N vj PLTW (vjk) = dayserv wkserv n vj

× × ,

where N(vj) is the total number of plates (children) served at that meal visit at that site, dayserv is 

the number of days per week this meal was served, wkserv is the number of weeks that meals 

were served at the site, and nobs(vj) is the total number of plates sampled for observation at that 

meal visit at that site.

The initial plate-observed weight IPLTWobs (vjk) for all k plate records sampled at the jth 

sampled site and vth mealtime visit was calculated as the product of the mealtime visit weight 

and the initial plate observation weight, or: 

() ( ) obs mealtime obs IPLTW (vjk) = W v PLTW vjk × ,

where Wmealtime(v) is the mealtime-visit-adjusted weight and PLTWobs(vjk) is the plate observation 

weight. 

b. Final Plate Weight 

The final plate observation weight reflects the total number of meals served by sponsors 

approved for the 2001 SFSP in each state. These numbers are the same ones used in the 

poststratification of sponsors and sites to total meals served. The poststratification cells consist 

breakfast, lunch, and supper meals, by sponsor type. 
B.16 

If Tk is the poststratification total for meals served by poststratification cell k, then the total 

meal poststratification adjustment ADJtl_meal (k) for records in that cell is: 

_

1

( )

( ) k

k

tl meal n

obs

i

T ADJ k

IPLTW vkj

=

=

∑

,

where nk is the number of sampled plates in poststratification cell k, and IPLTWobs(vjk) is the 

initial plate observation weight. 

The final plate-observed weight FWobs(vjk) was then calculated as the product of the initial 

plate-observed weight IPLTWobs(vkj) and the total meal poststratification adjustment factor as 

follows: 

_ ( ( ) () FW vjk) = IPLTW vjk ADJ k obs obs tl meal × . 

This weight is used to analyze plate observations at each site. 

5. Plate Waste Weighting

a. Initial Plate Waste Weight 

The mealtime-visit-adjusted weight was also used to calculate the plate waste weights. 

Interviewers were instructed to randomly observe a total of 10 plates as they were discarded, and 

to examine the types and amounts of food uneaten (plate waste). The dataset of meal times was 

expanded into a dataset containing one record per plate waste observed. At one site, the 

interviewer missed the plate waste observation for lunch, so a nonresponse adjustment was used 

to adjust the weights of the other lunchtime plate waste observations for this missing data. 

For all plate waste records within a site and mealtime, the plate waste observation weight 

was calculated as the inverse of the probability of selection of a particular plate for waste 

observation during that visit at that site at that mealtime, or: 

( )

( ) waste

w

N vj PLTW (vjk) = dayserv wkserv n vj

× × ,

where N(vj) is the total number of plates (children) served at that meal visit at that site, dayserv is 

the number of days per week this meal was served, wkserv is the number of weeks that meals 

were served at the site, and nw(vj) is the total number of plates sampled for waste observation at 

that meal visit at that site. 
B.17 

The initial plate waste weight IPLTWwaste (vjk) for all k plate waste records sampled at the jth 

sampled site and the vth mealtime visit was calculated as the product of the meal visit weight and 

the plate waste weight, or: 

waste () ( ) mealtime waste IPLTW (vjk) = W v PLTW vkj × ,

where Wmealtime(v) is the mealtime-visit-adjusted weight and PLTWwaste(vkj) is the plate waste 

observation weight. 

b. Final Plate Waste Weight 

The final plate waste observation weight reflects the total number of meals served by 

sponsors approved for the 2001 SFSP in each state. These numbers are the same ones used in 

the poststratification of sponsors and sites to total meals served. The poststratification cells 

consist of breakfast, lunch, and supper meals, by sponsor type. 

If Tk is the total for poststratification cell k, then the total meal waste poststratification 

adjustment, ADJwst(k) for records in that cell is: 

1

( )

( ) k

k

wst n

waste

i

T ADJ k

IPLTW vjk

=

=

∑

,

where nk is the number of sampled plates observed for waste in poststratification cell k, and 

IPLTWwaste(vkj) is the initial plate waste weight. 

The final plate waste observation weight FWwaste(vkj) was then calculated as the product of 

the initial plate waste weight IPLTWwaste(vjk) and the total meal waste poststratification 

adjustment factor as follows: 

( ( ) () FW vjk) = IPLTW vkj ADJ k waste wst × . 

This weight is used to analyze plate waste observations at each site. 

6. Former Sponsor Weighting 

a. Former Sponsor Base Weight 

The first step in weighting the former sponsor sample was to calculate the former sponsor 

sampling weight. Since the sample frame was small (367 sponsors), some former sponsors who 

had served a large number of meals in 2000 had a probability greater than one of being selected 
B.18 

in the sample. These 27 former sponsors were labeled “certainty sponsors,” automatically 

selected for the sample, and assigned a former sponsor base weight BWspon (i) equal to one. For 

the remaining 133 noncertainty former sponsors, the former sponsor base weight BWspon (i) for 

the ith sampled sponsor was calculated as the inverse of the probability of selection or: 

( )

( ) spon

ncert

S

BW (i) = n Si

+ ,

where: 

• S(+) is the sum of the square root of total meals for all eligible noncertainty sponsors 

on the sampling frame 

• S(i) is the square root of total meals for noncertainty sponsor i

• nncert is the total number of noncertainty sponsors selected, or 133 

b. Former Sponsor Nonresponse-Adjusted Weight 

The next step in former sponsor weighting was to adjust for nonresponse to the survey. 

Complete response for a sponsor means that MPR (1) determined whether the sponsor was 

eligible for interview (that is, whether they were, in fact, in operation in 2000 and not 2001); and 

(2) obtained interview data from the eligible sponsor. The nonresponse adjustments were 

conducted within two classes defined by whether the sponsor had one site or more than one site. 

The first nonresponse adjustment adjusted the base weight to account for data loss from 

former sponsors when MPR could not determine whether the sponsor was eligible. (For the 

weighting of current sponsors, this step was not necessary since MPR determined eligibility for 

all sponsors.) This nonresponse adjustment was defined as follows: 

• For records where the sponsor’s eligibility was determined, the screener completion 

nonresponse adjustment ADJscreent(ci) for record i in class c is defined as: 

1

1

( )

( )

() ()

c

c

n

spon

i

screen n

screenresp spon

i

BW ci

ADJ ci

δ ci BW ci

=

=

=

∑

∑

,

where BWspon(ci) is the former sponsor base weight for record i in class c, 

δ screenresp(ci) is equal to 1 for sponsors who responded to the questionnaire and 

0 otherwise. 

• For records where the sponsor’s eligibility was not determined, the screener 

completion nonresponse adjustment ADJscreen (ci) is equal to 0. 
B.19 

The screener-adjusted weight NRscreen (i) was then calculated as the product of the base 

weight and the screener completion nonresponse adjustment factor as follows: 

( ) () NR i) = BW (i ADJ ci screen spon screen × . 

The second nonresponse adjustment adjusted the weight to account for data loss from 

eligible former sponsors who did not complete an interview. This nonresponse adjustment was 

defined as follows: 

• For records where the sponsor completed a questionnaire, the questionnaire 

completion nonresponse adjustment ADJquest(ci) for record i in class c is defined as: 

1

1

() ()

( )

() ()

c

c

n

eligspon screen

i

quest n

questresp screen

i

ci NR ci

ADJ ci

ci NR ci

δ

δ

=

=

=

∑

∑

,

where NRscreen(ci) is the screener-adjusted weight for record i in class c, δ eligspon(ci) is 

equal to 1 for eligible sponsors and 0 otherwise, and δ questresp(ci) is equal to 1 for 

sponsors who responded to the questionnaire and 0 otherwise. 

• For records where the sponsor did not complete the questionnaire, the questionnaire 

completion nonresponse adjustment ADJquest (ci) is equal to 0. 

• For ineligible sponsors, the questionnaire completion nonresponse adjustment factor 

ADJquest (ci) is equal to 1. 

The nonresponse-adjusted weight W1 (i) was then calculated as the product of the screeneradjusted weight and the questionnaire completion nonresponse adjustment factor as follows: 

1( ) () W i) = NR (i ADJ ci screen quest × . 

c. Final Former Sponsor Weights 

A poststratification adjustment was done to ensure that the survey-weighted count of former 

sponsors equals the estimated population count of former sponsors. The former sponsor adjusted 

final weight reflects the total number of former sponsors that participated in the SFSP in 2000 

but not in 2001, based on the lists provided by states, adjusted for ineligible sponsors, based on 
B.20 

the proportion of sponsors identified as ineligible in the survey.4 The poststratification cells are 

defined by the former sponsor’s region. 

If Ck was the poststratification total number of former sponsors for region k, then the 

poststratification adjustment ADJsp(i) for former sponsors in that region is: 

1

1

( )

( ) k

k

sp n

i

C ADJ i

W i

=

=

∑

,

where nk is the number of sampled sponsors in region k, and W1 (i) is the nonresponse-adjusted 

former sponsor weight. 

The final former sponsor weight FFSPW(i) was then calculated as the product of the 

nonresponse weight W1(i) and the former sponsor poststratification adjustment factor as follows: 

1 ( () () FFSPW i) = W i ADJ i × sp . 

This weight is used to analyze the former sponsor data. 

 4

Although there were 367 former sponsors in the original sample frame, we estimate there 

were 330 eligible former sponsors nationally, using the eligibility rate from the survey. 
APPENDIX C 

PROFILES OF SFSP SITES 

C.3

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is remarkably diverse. It feeds children through 

age 18 in many different settings in low-income neighborhoods or in enrolled or camp programs 

targeted to low-income children. To provide a sense of how the program works, this appendix 

presents portraits of a range of SFSP sites. The nine sites described here are not intended to be 

representative or “typical” SFSP sites; rather, they have been selected to illustrate the program’s 

range. Although the portraits include some background information on each site’s sponsor, the 

details are limited to protect confidentiality. 

The nine sites are highly diverse. Despite their differences, however, they all shared some 

characteristics. In general, the sites served equal numbers of boys and girls, and they did not 

serve seconds. They served 80 percent or more of the meals that had been prepared or delivered. 

Meals were not observed being taken off site. Site supervisors at most of the sites did not report 

any capacity constraints that prevented children from being served. The site supervisors also 

reported that the sites had never run out of food. Exceptions to these findings are noted in the 

portraits. 

A. SCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES 

Three school-sponsored sites are described. One is a small rural site, one is a large suburban 

site run by a medium-sized school district, and one is a large urban site run by a large school 

district. 

1. Open School Site, Small School Sponsor 

A small school sponsor on a Native American reservation in a remote rural area ran one 

open site. The sponsor had run the program for several years at the site, using a single staff 

member. The program was publicized in the school at the end of the year and by driving around 

the area in a car that carried a sign advertising the program. 

The site offered lunch at the single elementary school in the area and served about 

30 children per day. Meals were prepared and served in the cafeteria. No activities were 

available. The program was open 5 days per week for 8 weeks. In the sponsor survey, the 

woman who ran the program (and who also was the site supervisor) commented that the program 

could not increase the number of days of operation because she was “... the only staff person. I 

need a break and interest begins to wane by August.” 

Of the children attending the program at this site, one-sixth were preschool age, one-half 

were elementary-age, and one-third were middle-school age. The site supervisor estimated that 

about 90 percent were Native American, and that the remaining 10 percent were white. She 

reported that lack of parental motivation was a problem in getting children to the site; all the 

children walked to the school by themselves, although older children sometimes brought their 

younger siblings with them. 

On the visit day, 35 children were fed lunch. The meal consisted of an all-beef hotdog on a 

bun (mustard and ketchup packets were available); choice of canned pears, fresh apple slices, or 

fresh orange slices; nacho cheese tortilla chips; and choice of chocolate or white milk (both 
C.4

2 percent fat). Little plate waste was observed: 1 child out of 10 left the hotdog and tortilla 

chips untouched, but on all the other plates, only 1 or 2 bites of food were uneaten. Although the 

sponsor’s application listed the site as using offer versus serve (OVS), a policy that permits 

children to refuse parts of the meal in order to reduce waste, all the observed children received 

full meals. The supervisor reported that leftovers were stored but were not served the following 

day (for reasons unknown). 

2. Enrolled School Site, Medium-Sized School Sponsor 

A public school sponsor ran about 20 enrolled sites in 2001, including this suburban site in 

an elementary school cafeteria. Both the site and the sponsor have offered the SFSP for a few 

years. However, the sponsor operated fewer sites in 2001 than in 2000. 

The site was open from Monday through Friday for about 41⁄2 weeks. In addition to meals, it 

offered educational activities and supervised free play. Meals were prepared by the sponsor at a 

central kitchen and were transported to the school in a refrigerated vehicle. Once at the school, 

they were heated (if necessary), served, and eaten in the cafeteria. According to the site 

supervisor, the school worked with other organizations to publicize the program. She considered 

the publicity to be adequate but believed that sending out flyers also might be useful. She 

estimated that about 220 breakfasts and 230 lunches were served to children on a typical day. 

She reported that all leftover meals were discarded. 

The children who attended the meals were almost evenly split between preschool and 

elementary-school ages. Sixty percent were Hispanic; the others were African American. 

According to the site supervisor, almost all children receiving meals attended the program 5 days 

per week. More than half were transported to the school by school bus. Others walked, rode 

their bicycles, or were driven to the site. 

The day of the site visit was sunny and humid, and the temperature was 73 degrees. Ten 

staff members served and supervised breakfast, which was served early to 199 children. 

Breakfast was a standardized meal served in a food pick-up line and consisted of sweetened, 

ready-to-eat cereal; 100 percent fruit juice punch; apple juice; a package of two apple-cinnamon 

graham crackers; and a choice of 1 percent white milk or 1 percent chocolate milk. Five out of 

10 meals observed for plate waste contained uneaten cereal, and 6 out of 10 had leftover fruit 

punch. In addition, on six plates, all the graham crackers remained uneaten. Some portions of 

milk and apple juice were left as well. 

Lunch was served early; it began at 10:55 a.m. and ended at 11:45 a.m. Fourteen staff 

served and supervised the meal, which 204 children attended. The standardized lunch consisted 

of a hamburger on a white bun, accompanied by ketchup and mustard packets and a half 

teaspoon of mayonnaise; roasted potatoes; pickle spears; a choice of 1 percent white milk or 

1 percent chocolate milk; and a jello-fruit salad served in cups. Five out of the 10 plates 

observed contained some discarded hamburger, and 4 out of the 10 contained about half the 

potatoes; almost all the plates contained uneaten pickles. Some milk and jello-fruit cups were 

uneaten. 
C.5

3. Open School Site, Large Urban School Sponsor 

A public school district in a large urban area operated more than 100 open sites in the 

summer of 2001. Most of the sites served food prepared on site, but some smaller sites that were 

not at schools received food from a local school. The sponsor has run the program for many 

years. The site that the interviewer visited had been open for longer than 5 years. 

The site was located in the cafeteria of an elementary school in a densely populated urban 

area. It was open 5 days per week for 6 weeks. The SFSP meals consisted of breakfast and 

lunch. Most of the children whom the site served were elementary-age students attending 

summer school in the building. The site also served small numbers of preschoolers and older 

children from the community who came only for meals. Some of these children were 

accompanied by a parent or older sibling. Most of the children were African American; some 

were Hispanic. All the children arrived on foot or by bicycle from the surrounding 

neighborhood. The supervisor estimated that the site typically served about 75 children at 

breakfast, and about 185 at lunch. 

On the day that the interviewer visited, the afternoon temperature was over 100 degrees. 

The cafeteria was not air-conditioned, but it had large fans. Food was prepared on site by a staff 

of four. Two custodial staff and a security guard also were present during the meals. According 

to the supervisor, if some of the meals were not served, some parts were discarded, and some 

were stored and then served the following day. 

On the visit day, 79 children were served breakfast. The staff asked children arriving for 

summer school who did not stop to get food, “Have you had breakfast?” They then encouraged 

those who had not had a meal to eat the breakfast provided. Children who were not in summer 

school sat on the opposite side of the cafeteria from the summer school students. 

Children were offered a choice of boxed, ready-to-eat cereals; orange juice or apple juice; a 

choice of four flavors of low-fat yogurt; and a small, individually wrapped banana loaf. 

Although several types of milk were available, all children observed who took milk chose whole 

white milk. The sponsor indicated on its application that it would use OVS for sites located in 

schools; 1 out of 10 observed plates lacked juice, and 3 lacked milk. Little cereal, juice, or 

yogurt were wasted. About half the milk remained in most cartons. (The children typically 

poured half their milk on the cereal but did not drink the rest.) The banana loaf was left 

untouched on about half the plates but was completely eaten on others. 

The site served lunch to 109 children. This number may have been lower than usual, as the 

heat was oppressive, and some classes held parties that day, with food, to celebrate the last day 

of summer school. As at breakfast, children attending summer school sat together at one end of 

the cafeteria, with their teachers offering some supervision, while those from the community sat 

on the other side of the cafeteria. 

Lunch was more standardized than breakfast; milk was the only part of the meal for which 

several choices were available. The lunch consisted of a chicken patty with honey mustard 

flavoring on a roll, canned corn, a watermelon wedge, a bag of chocolate chip cookies, and a 

choice of milk. All children observed had whole white milk or 1 percent chocolate milk, 
C.6

although lower-fat white milk was available. All the children observed took all the lunch 

components. On about half of the 10 plates observed for waste, most of the sandwich remained 

uneaten; however, little other waste was observed. A few bags of cookies were slipped into 

backpacks when staff were not looking. 

B. GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED SITES 

Most government sponsors are municipal parks and recreation programs, but they also 

include public housing authorities and social service agencies. This section describes sites run 

by each of these types of agencies. 

1. Open Outdoor Site at Housing Project, Small Government Sponsor 

The public housing authority in a small city operated three open SFSP sites at its housing 

projects. The sites served only lunch, which was provided by a local school food program, under 

contract. The sponsor had operated for longer than 5 years but reported operating fewer sites in 

2001 than in the past. The sites received funding for staff and some activities from a drug 

prevention program. 

The site that the interviewer visited was outside, in the courtyard of a housing project. All 

the children attending the program lived in the housing project. All were Hispanic, and, although 

they ranged in age, most were elementary-school age. The site supervisor and the two other site 

staff were teenagers. Limited recreational activities (sports and arts and crafts) were available at 

the site. If it rained, the children would sit on the porches of their buildings to eat. The site was 

open 5 days per week, for 8 weeks. The supervisor reported that the site advertised by handing 

out flyers and by having recruiters walk around the housing project to explain the program. 

Meals were delivered in a cooler brought by a nonrefrigerated vehicle, and leftover meals 

were picked up after lunch. About 35 children were served on the day of the visit, but the 

supervisor reported that usual attendance was twice that number; the data available do not 

explain the discrepancy. The temperature was 75 degrees. The standardized lunch was a turkey 

sandwich, which consisted of processed turkey roll on toasted wheat bread with lettuce and 

tomato; a bag of nacho cheese tortilla chips; and a pint of 2 percent chocolate milk. Ten plates 

were observed for waste; 6 children were observed to eat only 1 or 2 bites of their sandwich, and 

6 did not eat their chips. Nearly all the chocolate milk was consumed. 

2. Open Recreation Program in Park, Medium-Sized Government Sponsor 

The recreation department of a small city (part of a large, urban area) sponsored more than 

30 sites in 2001. The sponsor contracted with the local school food service for food preparation 

and served only lunch at its sites. The sponsor reported being “somewhat satisfied” with the 

vendor. 

The visited site was an open site located at an urban park; it generally served lunch outside 

to roughly 80 children. It was open 5 days per week, for 9 weeks. A range of recreation 
C.7

programs was offered at the site on a drop-in basis, including educational activities, arts and 

crafts, sports, swimming, and field trips. Staff included paid recreation workers and several 

volunteers. Most children walked or rode bicycles to the site. About half the children attended 

every day; the rest came a few days per week. Most were of elementary-school age, but some 

were younger, and some were older. About 90 percent were Hispanic. The site supervisor 

believed that the program reached all who were interested. She stated that “kids know about the 

program and tell others.” She also informed the interviewer that the site advertised through 

flyers, banners, and efforts to speak to parents about the program. 

On the 90-degree day of the visit, 75 children were fed at lunch. Many were brought early 

by their parents to ensure they received the meal. Parents were asked to wait outside the serving 

area. The food was delivered in coolers in a nonrefrigerated truck. The site supervisor reported 

that food rarely was left over. She also reported that she placed any leftovers in the share box, 

and that “kids take it.” The supervisor reported a few seconds occasionally were served, but 

none were observed on the day of the visit. 

The standardized lunch consisted of a turkey ham sandwich on a whole wheat bun, 

accompanied by a mustard packet; 1 percent chocolate milk; a small nectarine; a sealed packet of 

baby carrots; apple juice; and graham crackers. The baby carrots generally remained unopened 

(and were placed in the share box), and a few children did not eat part of their sandwiches, but 

there was little other food left on the plates. 

3. Open Recreation Program at Playground, Large Government Sponsor 

Another recreation program site was run by a city social service agency in a large city that 

has sponsored more than 100 open sites for longer than 5 years. Meals were provided by a 

private vendor. 

The observed site was a playground. Lunch (the only meal offered) was served inside a 

small building on the playground. The site, which had offered the SFSP at that location for 

longer than 5 years, was open 5 days per week, for 12 weeks. A range of recreational activities 

was offered in a day camp program; after lunch, the children were taken to a nearby swimming 

pool. All the children walked or rode bicycles to the site from the surrounding neighborhood. 

The supervisor identified the quality of the food and the lack of safety in the neighborhood as 

factors that limited participation. He mentioned that the site had run out of food at some point, 

which is not surprising in a setting with fluctuating attendance. 

Food was delivered in a refrigerated vehicle, and the number of meals ordered was adjusted 

daily. Any leftover meals were picked up by the sponsor. According to the site supervisor, 

about 22 children usually attended. On the day of the visit, however, the interviewer observed 

only 10 children eating lunch. The temperature that day was over 90 degrees, and the supervisor 

ascribed the low attendance to the heat. Two staff served the meals and ran the activities. All 

the children were African American. Although the site supervisor reported that all the children 

who attended were of elementary-school age, the interviewer observed that 3 of the 10 children 

served were preschoolers who were brought to the site solely in order to eat. When reporting on 
C.8

the age of the attending children, it is likely that the supervisor had been thinking only of the 

children who came for the activities. 

The site supervisor reported that the sponsor never asked for his opinion about menus; he 

believed the sponsor should provide food that would be more appealing to the children. He 

thought that children should be served more juice, instead of fruit, and more hotdogs or tacos, 

instead of cold sandwiches. 

The box lunches consisted of a bologna and American cheese sandwich on white bread, 

served with a packet of salad dressing; a fresh nectarine; 2 percent white milk; and a fruit juice 

drink in a pouch.1 The juice was consumed completely, but half the milk was untouched. Some 

plates contained small unconsumed amounts of the other items. 

C. NONPROFIT AND CAMP SITES 

Almost all nonprofit sponsors, National Youth Sports Programs (NYSPs), and residential 

camps are small programs. Nonprofit agencies are generally limited to 25 sites, and most NYSP 

and residential camp sponsors operate only 1 site. Because these types of sponsors represent 

small, but distinctive parts of the SFSP, we describe one example of each type. 

1. Enrolled Day Camp Site, Nonprofit Sponsor, Small City 

A private nonprofit social service agency in a small city ran two open sites and one enrolled 

site. The visited site was the enrolled site, a day camp program that was run out of the sponsor’s 

headquarters. The sponsor has been operating for longer than 5 years and, because no vendors 

were located in the area, prepared food on site. 

The sponsor contact, who was the nutrition director for the three sites, also completed the 

site supervisor interview. She believed that the main barriers to participation were parents’ lack 

of awareness about the program, transportation difficulties, and parents’ reluctance to accept a 

“handout.” She has worked aggressively to spread the word about the sites by sending out flyers 

through the schools, erecting signs about the program in front of the social service agency’s 

building, giving interviews on the radio and on television, and creating a short radio “spot”

inviting children to attend the program. The sponsor also worked with a local youth program 

that provides volunteers to help with activities and food service. 

 1

The fruit juice drink was described by the interviewer as “unknown percent juice.” It was 

coded as “fruit drink,” which is about 10 percent fruit juice. See Appendix E for further 

discussion of coding rules. 
C.9

The day camp ran from 6:30 a.m. to 6 p.m., 5 days per week, for longer than 12 weeks. It 

served breakfast, lunch, and an afternoon snack not covered by the SFSP.2 The interviewer 

found the kitchen and dining area to be clean and nicely decorated. The visit was on a cool day 

(50 degrees). The nutrition director reported that about half the children attended the program 

every day, with the rest attending 3 or 4 days per week. Activities included arts and crafts, 

games, sports, swimming, field trips, and cooking instruction. Four staff planned and prepared 

the meals; two of the four worked part-time hours. All four worked for the program year-round, 

as the agency also is a Child and Adult Care Food Program sponsor. Six other staff, who worked 

as part-time help during the summer, supervised the children during the meals. On the day of the 

visit, 45 children ate breakfast and 56 ate lunch; these numbers were typical. The interviewer 

noted that seven other children were present at breakfast but did not eat, presumably because 

they had eaten at home. 

The children attending the program were largely of elementary-school age, but a few 

middle-school children also attended. Most were white, but about 20 percent were Native 

American. Most were dropped off by car; about 10 percent were transported to the site by the 

program. 

Both breakfast and lunch were standardized. Breakfast included a ready-to-eat cereal, a 

muffin made from scratch on site, canned applesauce, and 1 percent white milk. About half the 

children left some milk, and about half left a few bites of other food. Lunch was a sloppy Joe 

(ground beef in tomato sauce) on a bun, canned corn, canned fruit cocktail, and 1 percent white 

milk. About half the children did not eat any of the fruit cocktail, and a few did not drink the 

milk. The sandwich and corn generally were eaten. 

2. Residential Camp, Rural Location 

As is usual for camps, this Jewish residential camp, which follows kosher dietary laws, was 

the sponsor’s only site. The camp is in a rural location, and the sponsor transported the children 

to it from a large, urban area for the 8-week session. The camp has participated in the SFSP for 

longer than 5 years. It offers a wide range of activities, including religious activities. Children 

attending the camp ranged in age from preschool-age to high-school age. The preschool children 

present on the day of the visit were children of the staff. Almost all the children were boys. The 

camp has a staff of 18 professionals, 35 counselors, 15 junior counselors, and 12 kitchen 

workers. The camp director reported that an average of 350 children attend. Meals were served 

indoors. According to the director, about 5 to 10 percent of meals served are seconds; on the 

visit day, a few seconds were observed.3

 The director also reported that there never were any 

leftover meals. 

 2

The SFSP provides reimbursements for only two meals or snacks. (Migrant sites and 

residential camp sites are the exception to this regulation.) Some sites served snacks without 

requesting reimbursement. 

3

The number of seconds claimed on the reimbursement form is unknown. 
C.10

The interviewer observed only supper at this site, which was served to 312 children. Older 

children stood in a line to receive their food; the younger children were served family style. All 

the observed suppers included baked chicken (leg and thigh), brown rice, steamed carrots, two 

slices of rye bread, and lemonade. A few children also received coleslaw or canned fruit 

cocktail. No milk was served because of kosher dietary laws; kosher sites are permitted to omit 

milk when meat is served as long as they serve juice (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002b). 

Overall, most food was eaten. About half the 10 plates observed contained a small amount of 

uneaten rice. Two or three children left small amounts of chicken, carrots, or juice, and one 

child left the bread untouched. 

3. NYSP Site on College Campus, Large Urban Area 

A public college in an urban area sponsors the SFSP in conjunction with the NYSP at one 

site. The program operates for 5 weeks and serves a morning snack and lunch. Food was 

provided by the local school food service. The program had been operating as an SFSP sponsor 

for longer than 10 years, and the number of children participating each year had remained about 

the same. The serving site was located in a campus church building, but program activities took 

place elsewhere on campus. Children arrived for the day on a bus provided by the program. The 

site supervisor believed that there was additional demand for summer meals in the area but 

commented that, as an enrolled program with a limited capacity, the program was unable to meet 

that demand. 

Although the site supervisor reported average daily participation of about 250, only slightly 

more than 200 children were observed eating lunch on the day of the interviewer’s visit. On that 

day, a group of children was late in returning from an activity. A few staff ate lunch as well. 

The children were of older elementary and middle-school age. Nearly all were African 

American. 

The food was delivered in coolers brought by a nonrefrigerated vehicle. The site had a 

kitchen, with a refrigerator, and the supervisor reported that leftover food sometimes was stored 

there, to be served the next day, and sometimes was discarded. The largely standardized meal 

included chicken nuggets served with ketchup, fruit cocktail, choice of orange juice or grape 

juice, and choice of whole white milk or 1 percent chocolate milk. All the chicken nuggets on 

the 10 plates observed for waste were eaten. About three plates contained untouched milk, three 

had untouched fruit cocktail, and a few had a little juice left. 
APPENDIX D 

DETAILED TABULATIONS FROM THE 

2001 SPONSOR-SITE DATABASE 

D.3

This appendix presents detailed tabulations from the 2001 Sponsor-Site Database by state 

and by Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) region. It then compares the results from the SponsorSite Database with results from the Sponsor Survey and with FNS administrative data. 

A. STATE AND REGIONAL DATA FROM THE SPONSOR-SITE DATABASE 

The tables in this appendix show the following variables from the Sponsor-Site Database by 

state and FNS region: 

• Sites per sponsor (Table D.1) 

• Total meals served per sponsor (Table D.2) 

• Number of new and continuing sponsors (Table D.3) 

• Number of sponsors that served each type of meal (breakfast, lunch, supper, snacks) 

(Table D.4) 

• Duration of sponsors’ programs (Table D.5) 

• Number of sponsors, by sponsor type (Table D.6) 

B. COMPARISON OF SPONSOR-SITE DATABASE AND SPONSOR SURVEY 

The sample for the 2001 Sponsor Survey was selected to be nationally representative. 

Although the sample was not stratified by sponsor type, the weights for the sample were 

poststratified to match the total number of sponsors overall and by type in the Sponsor-Site 

Database. Unfortunately, after the final weights were prepared, two sponsors that were 

residential camps were found to have been classified incorrectly as nonprofit organizations. As a 

result of that misclassification, the weights in the Sponsor Survey slightly overestimate the 

proportion of camp sponsors and slightly underestimate the proportion of nonprofit sponsors.1

 

Other differences between the Sponsor Survey and the Sponsor-Site Database may reflect 

sampling variability, as no sample would be expected to capture precisely the characteristics of 

the population. 

Overall, the tabulations from the Sponsor Survey and the Sponsor-Site Database correspond 

well on the few variables that can be compared directly. As expected, the weighted tabulations 

from the Sponsor Survey show slightly more camp sponsors (18.7 percent, versus 16.4 percent in 

the Sponsor-Site Database) and slightly fewer nonprofit sponsors (16.8 percent versus 17.5 

percent) (Table D.7). According to the Sponsor Survey, somewhat more sponsors have only one 

site (54.7 percent versus 49.6 percent). In addition, there are fewer large sponsors than the 

Sponsor-Site Database indicates; this differences reflects sampling variability, rather than the 

weighting adjustment. Furthermore, the Sponsor-Site Database indicates that only 98 percent of 

 1

Some testing indicated that this weighting issue generally would not affect other variables 

by more than 1 percentage point. 
D.4

sponsors served lunch, although all sponsors in the sample served lunch. More sponsors reported 

offering snacks in the Sponsor Survey than in the Sponsor-Site Database (20.5 percent versus 

15.2 percent). None of these differences is statistically significant; all of the differences are less 

than twice the standard error of the survey estimate. 

C. COMPARISON OF SPONSOR-SITE DATABASE AND FNS ADMINISTRATIVE 

DATA 

The Sponsor Survey and the Sponsor-Site Database correspond fairly closely, but, at first 

glance, the data from the Sponsor-Site Database and FNS administrative data appear to be quite 

different. To understand these differences, it is important to understand how the FNS data are 

collected. As part of the July claims for reimbursement, FNS requires the state agencies to report 

the number of sponsors and sites, by the five major sponsor types (school, government, 

nonprofit, residential camp, and National Youth Sports Program [NYSP]); the reports are made 

on so-called FNS-418 forms. The instructions for these forms do not specify in detail how the 

counts of sponsors and sites are to be computed, but discussions with FNS staff and state agency 

staff suggest that most, but not all, states report the numbers of sponsors and sites that operate in 

July, rather than the number that operate at any time during the year. Another explanation for 

these discrepancies is the fact that some states count certain organizations as two sponsors (for 

example, because they run both an NYSP and an Upward Bound program), whereas the SponsorSite Database counted the organizations as a single sponsor (see Appendix A for additional 

discussion of this issue). Furthermore, in compiling the state data for the Sponsor-Site Database, 

study staff found that many states had several different counts of their sponsors, depending on 

which list was consulted. 

Table D.8 compares the FNS administrative data (also presented in Table II.5 in the report) 

with similar data from the Sponsor-Site Database. The FNS data show substantially fewer 

sponsors (3,747 versus 4,370 in the Sponsor-Site Database), and somewhat fewer sites (31,304 

versus 35,490). The percentage distributions of sponsors by type also differ slightly. For 

example, the FNS data show 1,646 school sponsors (43.9 percent), but the Sponsor-Site 

Database lists 2,118 sponsors of this type (48.5 percent). Differences in the number of sites are 

concentrated among school sponsors (14,023 sites in FNS data versus 17,321 in the Database) 

but also are found for other sponsor types; thus, the percentage distribution of sites by sponsor 

type differs as well. 

On the hypothesis that the FNS data may include primarily sponsors that operated in July 

2001, the study prepared counts of sponsors and sites from the Sponsor-Site Database that were 

restricted to sponsors operating in July 2001; these counts were based on start and end dates for 

sponsors’ programs (Table D.9). This restriction accounts for almost all (95 percent) of the 

original difference in the total number of sponsors, and 39 percent of the difference in the total 

number of sites. The largest remaining difference in the number of sponsors is rather small—

145 NYSP sponsors in the Sponsor-Site Database versus 131 in the FNS data. Furthermore, the 

percentage distribution by sponsor type is almost identical, suggesting the FNS data have a fairly 

accurate count of July sponsors by sponsor type. 
D.5

The FNS data are not as close to the Sponsor-Site Database with respect to the number of 

sites. The FNS data list 2,564 fewer sites run by July sponsors than does the Database. It is 

possible that the FNS data may only list sites that operate in July, whereas the database 

tabulations were not restricted in this way. (Sponsors that operate in July may have sites that do 

not operate in July, but the analysis counts all their sites.) However, 79 percent of the difference 

in July sites is concentrated among school sponsors. The Database lists 16,050 sites run by 

school sponsors that operated in July (47.4 percent of all sites); by comparison, the FNS data list 

14,023 of these sites (44.8 percent). The numbers are more similar for other sponsor types. (The 

number of camp sites is almost identical—876 in the Database and 872 in FNS data.) 

Most of the differences in the number of sites are concentrated in the Southeast region and 

in Texas (Table D.10). Sites in Texas and in some Southeast states run primarily in June. Some 

sponsors in these areas may operate in July but have sites that end in June; those June sites may 

be left out of the states’ reports to FNS. 

A few other states appear to report all sponsors and sites for the entire summer to FNS; for 

example, Missouri appears to report all sponsors (compare the FNS sponsor count in Table D.10 

for Missouri and the Sponsor-Site Database counts shown in Tables D.6 and D.10). In the 

Sponsor-Site Database, start and end dates are missing for all sponsors in Indiana and Utah and 

for selected other sponsors—these sponsors are excluded from the Database numbers in Tables 

D.9 and D.10. These factors explain some of the differences between the datasets. 

Overall, these results suggest that FNS needs to find out more about how states count the 

numbers of sponsors and sites they report on the July 418 forms. Obtaining this information is 

particularly important because the FNS data provide the only currently available trend data on 

the numbers of sponsors and sites in the SFSP. 

D.7

TABLE D.1 

NUMBER OF SITES PER SPONSOR, 

BY STATE AND REGION 

(Distribution and Mean) 

 Number of Sites per Sponsor Mean 

 1 2-50 51+ Total Sponsors Number of 

State Name Number 

Row 

Percent Number 

Row 

Percent Number 

Row 

Percent Number 

Row 

Percent 

Sites per 

Sponsor 

Mid-Atlantic 

Delaware 5 33.3 9 60.0 1 6.7 15 100.0 15 

District of Columbia 13 76.5 2 11.8 2 11.8 17 100.0 10 

Maryland 19 41.3 23 50.0 4 8.7 46 100.0 14 

New Jersey 45 46.4 46 47.4 6 6.2 97 100.0 12 

Pennsylvania 83 50.9 74 45.4 6 3.7 163 100.0 14 

Puerto Rico 12 80.0 2 13.3 1 6.7 15 100.0 59 

Virgin Islands 1 33.3 0 — 2 66.7 3 100.0 60 

Virginia 36 36.4 62 62.6 1 1.0 99 100.0 7 

West Virginia 35 38.0 57 62.0 0 — 92 100.0 5 

Mid-Atlantic Subtotal 249 45.5 275 50.3 23 4.2 547 100.0 12 

Midwest 

Illinois 51 50.0 47 46.1 4 3.9 102 100.0 13 

Indiana 52 66.7 25 32.1 1 1.3 78 100.0 5 

Michigan 70 63.6 38 34.5 2 1.8 110 100.0 8 

Minnesota 29 58.0 19 38.0 2 4.0 50 100.0 8 

Ohio 67 51.5 58 44.6 5 3.8 130 100.0 8 

Wisconsin 35 50.7 32 46.4 2 2.9 69 100.0 6 

Midwest Subtotal 304 56.4 219 40.6 16 3.0 539 100.0 8 

Mountain/Plains 

Colorado 28 57.1 21 42.9 0 — 49 100.0 3 

Iowa 22 68.8 10 31.3 0 — 32 100.0 3 

Kansas 34 64.2 19 35.8 0 — 53 100.0 3 

Missouri 111 69.4 47 29.4 2 1.3 160 100.0 4 

Montana 27 56.3 21 43.8 0 — 48 100.0 2 

Nebraska 29 82.9 6 17.1 0 — 35 100.0 3 

North Dakota 25 92.6 2 7.4 0 — 27 100.0 1 

South Dakota 36 69.2 16 30.8 0 — 52 100.0 2 

Utah 10 40.0 15 60.0 0 — 25 100.0 6 

Wyoming 4 66.7 2 33.3 0 — 6 100.0 2 

Mountain/Plains Subtotal 326 66.9 159 32.6 2 0.4 487 100.0 3 
TABLE D.1 (continued)

D.8

 Number of Sites per Sponsor Mean 

 1 2-50 51+ Total Sponsors Number of 

State Name Number 

Row 

Percent Number 

Row 

Percent Number 

Row 

Percent Number 

Row 

Percent 

Sites per 

Sponsor 

Northeast 

Connecticut 10 31.3 20 62.5 2 6.3 32 100.0 11 

Maine 33 62.3 20 37.7 0 — 53 100.0 2 

Massachusetts 36 42.4 48 56.5 1 1.2 85 100.0 9 

New Hampshire 21 80.8 5 19.2 0 — 26 100.0 2 

New York—ROAP 151 68.9 68 31.1 0 — 219 100.0 2 

New York—State 22 23.9 65 70.7 5 5.4 92 100.0 27 

Rhode Island 7 43.8 8 50.0 1 6.3 16 100.0 12 

Vermont 30 61.2 19 38.8 0 — 49 100.0 3 

Northeast Subtotal 310 54.2 253 44.2 9 1.6 572 100.0 8 

Southeast 

Alabama 29 42.0 38 55.1 2 2.9 69 100.0 10 

Florida 33 24.4 91 67.4 11 8.1 135 100.0 19 

Georgia 44 31.9 88 63.8 6 4.3 138 100.0 15 

Kentucky 53 35.1 96 63.6 2 1.3 151 100.0 6 

Mississippi 23 28.8 57 71.3 0 — 80 100.0 4 

North Carolina 50 40.0 71 56.8 4 3.2 125 100.0 8 

South Carolina 8 15.1 36 67.9 9 17.0 53 100.0 27 

Tennessee 17 37.0 22 47.8 7 15.2 46 100.0 27 

Southeast Subtotal 257 32.2 499 62.6 41 5.1 797 100.0 13 

Southwest 

Arkansas 66 73.3 24 26.7 0 — 90 100.0 2 

Louisiana 35 46.7 37 49.3 3 4.0 75 100.0 7 

New Mexico 19 27.1 49 70.0 2 2.9 70 100.0 11 

Oklahoma 77 74.8 24 23.3 2 1.9 103 100.0 3 

Texas 205 52.6 179 45.9 6 1.5 390 100.0 6 

Southwest Subtotal 402 55.2 313 43.0 13 1.8 728 100.0 6 

West 

Alaska 6 60.0 4 40.0 0 — 10 100.0 3 

Arizona 48 44.4 59 54.6 1 0.9 108 100.0 5 

California 115 41.1 159 56.8 6 2.1 280 100.0 7 

Hawaii 10 58.8 7 41.2 0 — 17 100.0 5 

Idaho 41 70.7 17 29.3 0 — 58 100.0 2 

Nevada 20 58.8 14 41.2 0 — 34 100.0 3 

Oregon 25 32.1 52 66.7 1 1.3 78 100.0 5 

Washington 56 47.9 59 50.4 2 1.7 117 100.0 5 

West Subtotal 321 45.7 371 52.8 10 1.4 702 100.0 5 

U.S. Total 2,169 49.6 2,089 47.8 114 2.6 4,372 100.0 8 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

ROAP = FNS regional office-administered program. 
D.9 

TABLE D.2 

TOTAL MEALS SERVED PER SPONSOR, 

BY STATE AND REGION 

(Distribution and Mean) 

 Number of Meals per Sponsor 

State Name <2,500 

2,500 to 

<10,000 ≥10,000 

Total 

Sponsors 

Mean Number of 

Meals per Sponsor 

Mid-Atlantic 

Delaware 1 4 10 15 33,871 

District of Columbia 5 7 5 17 62,978 

Maryland 10 20 16 46 32,446 

New Jersey 11 37 49 97 34,457 

Pennsylvania 44 57 62 163 48,988 

Puerto Rico 5 5 5 15 166,879 

Virgin Islands 1 0 2 3 120,470 

Virginia 19 36 41 96 20,038 

West Virginia 30 36 26 92 8,372 

Mid-Atlantic Subtotal 126 202 216 544 36,686 

Midwest 

Illinois 17 60 25 102 55,571 

Indiana 20 32 26 78 17,255 

Michigan 27 37 46 110 18,427 

Minnesota 13 20 17 50 30,813 

Ohio 32 52 46 130 17,812 

Wisconsin 13 35 21 69 16,854 

Midwest Subtotal 122 236 181 539 26,086 

Mountain/Plains 

Colorado 9 23 17 49 11,580 

Iowa 13 11 8 32 9,297 

Kansas 22 19 12 53 9,669 

Missouri 34 88 38 160 17,290 

Montana 17 26 5 48 4,999 

Nebraska 7 17 11 35 10,582 

North Dakota 11 15 1 27 5,191 

South Dakota 10 28 14 52 8,609 

Utah 3 5 17 25 33,968 

Wyoming 1 4 1 6 4,916 

Mountain/Plains Subtotal 127 236 124 487 12,773 
TABLE D.2 (continued)

D.10

 Number of Meals per Sponsor 

State Name <2,500 

2,500 to 

<10,000 ≥10,000 

Total 

Sponsors 

Mean Number of 

Meals per Sponsor 

Northeast 

Connecticut 3 8 21 32 44,759 

Maine 14 27 12 53 6,774 

Massachusetts 12 31 42 85 29,422 

New Hampshire 12 9 5 26 7,468 

New York—ROAP 28 61 117 206 34,468 

New York—State 13 27 52 92 146,018 

Rhode Island 4 6 6 16 31,255 

Vermont 29 16 4 49 3,589 

Northeast Subtotal 115 185 259 559 45,969 

Southeast 

Alabama 8 25 35 68 27,051 

Florida 14 34 87 135 90,321 

Georgia 15 47 75 137 31,763 

Kentucky 27 75 49 151 12,380 

Mississippi 2 28 50 80 19,767 

North Carolina 16 43 61 120 19,208 

South Carolina 2 8 43 53 60,305 

Tennessee 10 9 27 46 69,906 

Southeast Subtotal 94 269 427 790 38,673 

Southwest 

Arkansas 18 50 22 90 8,724 

Louisiana 5 25 45 75 38,081 

New Mexico 6 23 41 70 37,347 

Oklahoma 34 50 19 103 9,485 

Texas 79 169 141 389 27,910 

Southwest Subtotal 142 317 268 727 24,883 

West 

Alaska 3 6 1 10 5,835 

Arizona 19 42 47 108 20,655 

California 37 100 142 279 32,874 

Hawaii 2 8 6 16 15,932 

Idaho 18 26 14 58 9,387 

Nevada 6 12 16 34 29,623 

Oregon 16 33 29 78 13,382 

Washington 31 55 31 117 13,862 

West Subtotal 132 282 286 700 22,762 

U.S. Total 858 1,727 1,761 4,346 30,030 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

ROAP = FNS regional office-administered program. 
D.11 

TABLE D.3 

NUMBER OF CONTINUING AND NEW SPONSORS, 

BY STATE AND REGION 

State Name 

Continuing 

Sponsors 

New 

Sponsors 

Total 

Sponsors 

Mid-Atlantic 

Delaware 13 2 15 

District of Columbia 9 8 17 

Maryland 41 5 46 

New Jersey 92 5 97 

Pennsylvania 151 12 163 

Puerto Rico 12 3 15 

Virgin Islands 2 1 3 

Virginia 93 6 99 

West Virginia 84 8 92 

Mid-Atlantic Subtotal 497 50 547 

Midwest 

Illinois 92 10 102 

Indiana 59 19 78 

Michigan 95 15 110 

Minnesota 46 4 50 

Ohio 120 10 130 

Wisconsin 62 7 69 

Midwest Subtotal 474 65 539 

Mountain/Plains 

Colorado 44 5 49 

Iowa 30 2 32 

Kansas 47 6 53 

Missouri 136 24 160 

Montana 39 9 48 

Nebraska 31 4 35 

North Dakota 26 1 27 

South Dakota 45 7 52 

Utah 25 0 25 

Wyoming 6 0 6 

Mountain/Plains Subtotal 429 58 487 
TABLE D.3 (continued) 

D.12

State Name 

Continuing 

Sponsors 

New 

Sponsors 

Total 

Sponsors 

Northeast 

Connecticut 32 0 32 

Maine 49 4 53 

Massachusetts 83 2 85 

New Hampshire 21 5 26 

New York—ROAP 206 13 219 

New York—State 86 6 92 

Rhode Island 14 2 16 

Vermont 37 12 49 

Northeast Subtotal 528 44 572 

Southeast 

Alabama 66 3 69 

Florida 119 16 135 

Georgia 114 24 138 

Kentucky 151 0 151 

Mississippi 67 13 80 

North Carolina 108 17 125 

South Carolina 46 7 53 

Tennessee 43 3 46 

Southeast Subtotal 714 83 797 

Southwest 

Arkansas 86 4 90 

Louisiana 68 7 75 

New Mexico 60 10 70 

Oklahoma 92 11 103 

Texas 365 25 390 

Southwest Subtotal 671 57 728 

West 

Alaska 7 3 10 

Arizona 95 13 108 

California 257 23 280 

Hawaii 15 2 17 

Idaho 50 8 58 

Nevada 27 7 34 

Oregon 71 7 78 

Washington 97 20 117 

West Subtotal 619 83 702 

U.S. Total 3,932 440 4,372 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

ROAP = FNS regional office-administered program. 
D.13 

TABLE D.4 

MEALS OFFERED BY SPONSORS, 

BY STATE AND REGION 

(Number of Sponsors Offering Each Meal) 

 Number of Sponsors Serving Meal 

State Name Breakfast Lunch Supper Any Snack Total Sponsors 

Mid-Atlantic 

Delaware 15 15 3 1 15 

District of Columbia 14 16 2 6 17 

Maryland 43 42 14 9 46 

New Jersey 76 96 24 15 97 

Pennsylvania 115 160 73 32 163 

Puerto Rico 15 15 2 4 15 

Virgin Islands 1 3 0 3 3 

Virginia 76 95 21 17 99 

West Virginia 76 91 24 13 92 

Mid-Atlantic Subtotal 431 533 163 100 547 

Midwest 

Illinois 58 102 15 13 102 

Indiana 62 78 16 10 78 

Michigan 85 108 37 44 110 

Minnesota 39 50 18 4 50 

Ohio 76 128 34 15 130 

Wisconsin 50 69 27 22 69 

Midwest Subtotal 370 535 147 108 539 

Mountain/Plains 

Colorado 38 49 6 8 49 

Iowa 24 31 15 4 32 

Kansas 38 49 11 4 53 

Missouri 130 157 14 12 160 

Montana 32 45 9 8 48 

Nebraska 19 34 2 3 35 

North Dakota 21 26 10 2 27 

South Dakota 41 52 4 8 52 

Utah 17 24 4 3 24 

Wyoming 1 6 1 1 6 

Mountain/Plains Subtotal 361 473 76 53 486 
TABLE D.4 (continued)

D.14

 Number of Sponsors Serving Meal 

State Name Breakfast Lunch Supper Any Snack Total Sponsors 

Northeast 

Connecticut 27 32 5 0 32 

Maine 49 51 17 4 53 

Massachusetts 60 83 24 17 85 

New Hampshire 22 24 12 2 26 

New York—ROAP 186 217 140 37 217 

New York—State 58 90 1 29 92 

Rhode Island 11 16 4 1 16 

Vermont 32 48 14 5 49 

Northeast Subtotal 445 561 217 95 570 

Southeast 

Alabama 29 65 8 11 68 

Florida 79 135 21 57 135 

Georgia 92 136 16 16 137 

Kentucky 125 146 41 20 151 

Mississippi 49 80 9 7 80 

North Carolina 93 119 16 17 123 

South Carolina 20 52 7 13 53 

Tennessee 34 46 6 10 46 

Southeast Subtotal 521 779 124 151 793 

Southwest 

Arkansas 82 87 10 1 90 

Louisiana 55 75 13 1 75 

New Mexico 48 70 6 12 70 

Oklahoma 68 103 12 6 103 

Texas 272 382 17 32 389 

Southwest Subtotal 525 717 58 52 727 

West 

Alaska 8 10 4 4 10 

Arizona 86 106 6 12 108 

California 179 276 72 41 279 

Hawaii 6 16 3 3 16 

Idaho 53 57 6 6 58 

Nevada 28 33 3 3 34 

Oregon 60 78 13 16 78 

Washington 73 117 10 20 117 

West Subtotal 493 693 117 105 700 

U.S. Total 3,146 4,291 902 664 4,362 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

ROAP = FNS regional office-administered program. 
D.15 

TABLE D.5 

DURATION OF SPONSORS’ PROGRAMS, BY STATE AND REGION 

(Distribution) 

 Program Duration 

State Name 

<4 

Weeks 

4 to <8 

Weeks 

8 to <12 

Weeks 

≥12 

Weeks 

Total 

Sponsors 

Mid-Atlantic 

Delaware 1 5 9 0 15 

District of Columbia 2 11 4 0 17 

Maryland 2 34 10 0 46 

New Jersey 2 68 24 3 97 

Pennsylvania 13 78 69 3 163 

Puerto Rico 3 5 7 0 15 

Virgin Islands 0 0 2 0 2 

Virginia 14 48 36 1 99 

West Virginia 17 45 27 2 91 

Mid-Atlantic Subtotal 54 294 188 9 545 

Midwest 

Illinois 2 58 41 1 102 

Michigan 8 74 27 1 110 

Minnesota 2 21 20 7 50 

Ohio 7 68 51 0 126 

Wisconsin 8 28 30 2 68 

Midwest Subtotal 27 249 169 11 456 

Mountain/Plains 

Colorado 4 36 7 0 47 

Iowa 3 19 10 0 32 

Kansas 17 22 12 2 53 

Missouri 80 41 29 10 160 

Montana 7 18 18 5 48 

Nebraska 5 18 12 0 35 

North Dakota 3 16 7 1 27 

South Dakota 2 8 23 19 52 

Wyoming 1 1 4 0 6 

Mountain/Plains Subtotal 122 179 122 37 460 
TABLE D.5 (continued)

D.16

 Program Duration 

State Name 

<4 

Weeks 

4 to <8 

Weeks 

8 to <12 

Weeks 

≥12 

Weeks 

Total 

Sponsors 

Northeast 

Connecticut 0 27 5 0 32 

Maine 8 32 13 0 53 

Massachusetts 0 57 28 0 85 

New Hampshire 3 13 7 0 23 

New York—ROAP 10 104 105 0 219 

New York—State 4 66 22 0 92 

Rhode Island 0 14 2 0 16 

Vermont 9 26 9 1 45 

Northeast Subtotal 34 339 191 1 565 

Southeast 

Alabama 0 43 23 2 68 

Florida 8 60 64 2 134 

Georgia 9 76 50 2 137 

Kentucky 26 75 34 16 151 

Mississippi 14 61 5 0 80 

North Carolina 14 80 30 1 125 

South Carolina 4 36 13 0 53 

Tennessee 2 23 21 0 46 

Southeast Subtotal 77 411 217 21 726 

Southwest 

Arkansas 19 43 27 1 90 

Louisiana 0 67 8 0 75 

New Mexico 2 29 38 1 70 

Oklahoma 31 48 24 0 103 

Texas 132 178 75 3 388 

Southwest Subtotal 184 365 172 5 726 

West 

Alaska 1 4 3 2 10 

Arizona 16 52 23 17 108 

California 21 146 83 29 279 

Hawaii 1 11 4 0 16 

Idaho 21 17 17 1 56 

Nevada 2 8 13 11 34 

Oregon 12 38 28 0 78 

Washington 8 70 39 0 117 

West Subtotal 82 346 210 60 698 

U.S. Total 580 2,226 1,292 146 4,244 
TABLE D.5 (continued)

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

D.17

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

NOTE: The Sponsor-Site Database has missing dates of operation for Indiana and Utah. 

ROAP = FNS regional office-administered program. 

D.19 

TABLE D.6 

NUMBER OF SPONSORS BY TYPE, 

BY STATE AND REGION 

 Number of Sponsors 

State Name Government Nonprofit 

Residential 

Camp School NYSP 

Total 

Sponsors 

Mid-Atlantic 

Delaware 1 7 3 2 2 15 

District of Columbia 1 8 2 4 2 17 

Maryland 16 4 11 13 2 46 

New Jersey 37 17 24 18 1 97 

Pennsylvania 9 39 53 56 6 163 

Puerto Rico 0 2 1 12 0 15 

Virgin Islands 0 1 0 2 0 3 

Virginia 21 25 13 33 7 99 

West Virginia 10 25 19 37 1 92 

Mid-Atlantic Subtotal 95 128 126 177 21 547 

Midwest 

Illinois 40 26 12 24 0 102 

Indiana 2 29 15 30 2 78 

Michigan 14 8 30 57 1 110 

Minnesota 2 7 19 21 1 50 

Ohio 17 27 32 42 11 129 

Wisconsin 9 14 16 27 3 69 

Midwest Subtotal 84 111 124 201 18 538 

Mountain/Plains 

Colorado 2 3 6 37 1 49 

Iowa 0 4 14 13 1 32 

Kansas 2 6 12 29 4 53 

Missouri 19 15 10 113 3 160 

Montana 8 8 1 31 0 48 

Nebraska 7 1 2 21 3 34 

North Dakota 1 5 3 17 1 27 

South Dakota 4 9 2 36 1 52 

Utah 1 0 4 20 0 25 

Wyoming 2 1 1 2 0 6 

Mountain/Plains Subtotal 46 52 55 319 14 486 
TABLE D.6 (continued)

D.20

 Number of Sponsors 

State Name Government Nonprofit 

Residential 

Camp School NYSP 

Total 

Sponsors 

Northeast 

Connecticut 9 4 4 13 2 32 

Maine 0 3 16 33 1 53 

Massachusetts 10 28 18 26 3 85 

New Hampshire 3 4 10 9 0 26 

New York—ROAP 0 82 131 0 6 219 

New York—State 22 0 0 70 0 92 

Rhode Island 5 5 3 2 1 16 

Vermont 1 13 12 23 0 49 

Northeast Subtotal 50 139 194 176 13 572 

Southeast 

Alabama 43 6 6 6 8 69 

Florida 47 22 15 44 7 135 

Georgia 30 58 11 33 6 138 

Kentucky 14 17 15 105 0 151 

Mississippi 6 6 5 56 7 80 

North Carolina 5 33 11 66 10 125 

South Carolina 17 17 3 16 0 53 

Tennessee 15 5 5 15 6 46 

Southeast Subtotal 177 164 71 341 44 797 

Southwest 

Arkansas 5 14 10 58 3 90 

Louisiana 19 12 14 27 3 75 

New Mexico 22 14 5 27 2 70 

Oklahoma 2 4 11 84 2 103 

Texas 22 28 14 317 9 390 

Southwest Subtotal 70 72 54 513 19 728 

West 

Alaska 2 3 2 3 0 10 

Arizona 5 1 6 96 0 108 

California 54 43 60 112 11 280 

Hawaii 4 8 4 0 1 17 

Idaho 1 3 4 49 1 58 

Nevada 13 14 2 4 1 34 

Oregon 0 8 10 58 2 78 

Washington 20 17 5 69 6 117 

West Subtotal 99 97 93 391 22 702 

U.S. Total 621 763 717 2,118 151 4,370 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

ROAP = FNS regional office-administered program. 
D.21 

TABLE D.7 

COMPARISON OF SPONSOR-SITE DATABASE AND SPONSOR SURVEY 

 Sponsor-Site Database Sponsor Survey 

Percentage of 

Sponsors 

 Percentage of 

Sponsors 

Standard 

Error 

Sponsor Type 

School 48.5 48.1 (5.5) 

Government 14.2 14.2 (3.5) 

Residential camp 16.4 18.7 (5.0) 

NYSP 3.5 2.2 (1.2) 

Other nonprofit 

organization 17.5 16.8 (4.3) 

Number of Sites Sponsored 

1 49.6 54.7 (4.1) 

2 to 5 27.1 27.4 (4.3) 

6 to 10 9.1 6.8 (2.5) 

11 to 50 11.6 8.9 (2.0) 

51 to 100 1.5 0.8 (0.4) 

101 to 200 0.8 0.9 (0.4) 

201 to 300 0.2 0.4 (0.2) 

>300 0.1 0.1 (0.1) 

Median 2.0 1.0 n.a. 

Mean 8.1 7.4 (1.1) 

Meals Offered 

Breakfast 72.1 73.1 (5.4) 

Lunch 98.4 100.0 n.a. 

Supper 20.7 17.2 (4.5) 

Any snack 15.2 20.5 (4.5) 

Total Sponsors—

Database 4,372 — — 

Sample Size—Survey — 126 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001) and Sponsor Survey 

(2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations from the Sponsor Survey are weighted to be representative of sponsors 

nationally. 

n.a. = not available; NYSP = National Youth Sports Program. 

TABLE D.8 

COMPARISON OF SPONSOR CHARACTERISTICS IN FNS ADMINISTRATIVE DATA 

AND IN SPONSOR-SITE DATABASE, 2001 

 FNS Administrative Data Sponsor-Site Database 

Type of Sponsor 

Number of 

Sponsors Percentage 

Number 

of Sites Percentage 

Average 

Number of 

Sites 

Number of 

Sponsors Percentage 

Number 

of Sites Percentage 

Average 

Number of 

Sites 

School 1,646 43.9 14,023 44.8 8.5 2,118 48.5 17,321 48.8 8.2 Government 610 16.3 13,067 41.7 21.4 621 14.2 13,361 37.6 21.5 Residential Camp 651 17.4 872 2.8 1.3 717 16.4 949 2.7 1.3 NYSP 131 3.5 140 0.4 1.1 151 3.5 181 0.5 1.2 Other Nonprofit Organization 709 18.9 3,202 10.2 4.5 763 17.5 3,678 10.4 4.8 Total 3,747 100.0 31,304 100.0 8.4 4,370a 100.0 35,490 100.0 8.1 SOURCE: FNS administrative data were provided to Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. by FNS in January 2002. This dataset is from the “FNS-418” 

reporting forms submitted to FNS by SFSP state agencies. SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

aThe Sponsor-Site Database has missing data on sponsor type for two sponsors. These sponsors had two sites in 2001. 

FNS = Food and Nutrition Service; NYSP = National Youth Sports Program. 

D.23 

TABLE D.9 

COMPARISON OF JULY SPONSOR CHARACTERISTICS IN FNS ADMINISTRATIVE DATA 

AND IN SPONSOR-SITE DATABASE, 2001a

 FNS Administrative Data Sponsor-Site Database 

Type of Sponsor 

Number of 

Sponsors Percentage 

Number 

of Sites Percentage 

Average 

Number of 

Sites 

Number of 

Sponsors Percentage 

Number 

of Sites Percentage 

Average 

Number of 

Sites 

School 1,646 43.9 14,023 44.8 8.5 1,654 43.8 16,050 47.4 9.7 Government 610 16.3 13,067 41.7 21.4 607 16.1 13,235 39.1 21.8 Residential Camp 651 17.4 872 2.8 1.3 653 17.3 876 2.6 1.3 NYSP 131 3.5 140 0.4 1.1 145 3.8 175 0.5 1.2 Other Nonprofit Organization 709 18.9 3,202 10.2 4.5 717 19.0 3,532 10.4 4.9 Total 3,747 100.0 31,304 100.0 8.4 3,776b 100.0 33,868 100.0 9.0 SOURCE: FNS administrative data were provided to Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. by FNS in January 2002. This dataset is from the “FNS-418” reporting 

forms submitted to FNS by SFSP state agencies. SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

aSponsors in the Sponsor-Site Database that operated at any time in July 2001 are included in this table. The table excludes 128 sponsors with missing dates of 

operation. 

bThe Sponsor-Site Database has missing data on sponsor type for one July sponsor. This sponsor had one site in July 2001. 

FNS = Food and Nutrition Service; NYSP = National Youth Sports Program. 

D.25 

D.27 

TABLE D.10 

NUMBER OF JULY SPONSORS IN FNS ADMINISTRATIVE DATA 

AND IN SPONSOR-SITE DATABASE, BY STATE AND REGION, 2001a

(Distribution) 

 FNS Administrative Data Sponsor-Site Database 

State Name Number of Sponsors Number of Sites Number of Sponsors Number of Sites 

Mid-Atlantic 

Delaware 15 187 15 219 

District of Columbia 18 167 17 172 

Maryland 45 717 46 656 

New Jersey 90 1,617 97 1,157 

Pennsylvania 156 2,287 161 2,288 

Puerto Rico 11 445 11 885 

Virgin Islands 3 177 2 180 

Virginia 87 685 97 710 

West Virginia 79 417 86 457 

Mid-Atlantic Subtotal 504 6,699 532 6,724 

Midwest 

Illinois 101 1,292 101 1,364 

Indiana 79 355 N/A N/A 

Michigan 100 759 109 838 

Minnesota 45 370 48 388 

Ohio 120 955 123 1,024 

Wisconsin 71 361 61 378 

Midwest Subtotal 516 4,092 442 3,992 

Mountain/Plains 

Colorado 46 121 44 127 

Iowa 30 96 31 96 

Kansas 32 96 39 132 

Missouri 163 626 70 502 

Montana 49 117 45 107 

Nebraska 29 77 31 85 

North Dakota 20 29 25 35 

South Dakota 48 81 50 88 

Utah 22 114 N/A N/A 

Wyoming 5 9 5 9 

Mountain/Plains Subtotal 444 1,366 340 1,181 
TABLE D.10 (continued)

D.28

 FNS Administrative Data Sponsor-Site Database 

State Name Number of Sponsors Number of Sites Number of Sponsors Number of Sites 

Northeast 

Connecticut 32 357 32 359 

Maine 51 131 52 131 

Massachusetts 84 693 85 752 

New Hampshire 26 45 22 39 

New York—ROAP 193 445 215 478 

New York—State 93 2,455 92 2,441 

Rhode Island 16 184 16 199 

Vermont 42 131 45 139 

Northeast Subtotal 537 4,441 559 4,538 

Southeast 

Alabama 68 618 66 697 

Florida 127 2,336 128 2,553 

Georgia 130 1,755 127 2,005 

Kentucky 120 661 129 830 

Mississippi 65 206 61 236 

North Carolina 107 801 114 992 

South Carolina 47 1,187 48 1,408 

Tennessee 46 934 45 1,237 

Southeast Subtotal 710 8,498 718 9,958 

Southwest 

Arkansas 58 104 73 156 

Louisiana 67 505 75 522 

New Mexico 68 744 68 770 

Oklahoma 54 212 64 259 

Texas 174 1,263 248 2,027 

Southwest Subtotal 421 2,828 528 3,734 

West 

Alaska 9 20 9 25 

Arizona 76 359 92 525 

California 268 1,881 276 1,938 

Hawaii 16 82 16 83 

Idaho 34 87 41 109 

Nevada 30 74 32 77 

Oregon 67 334 76 399 

Washington 115 543 116 586 

West Subtotal 615 3,380 658 3,742 

U.S. Total 3,747 31,304 3,777 33,869 
TABLE D.10 (continued)

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

D.29

SOURCE: FNS administrative data were provided to Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. by FNS in January 2002. 

This dataset is from the “FNS-418” reporting forms submitted to FNS by SFSP state agencies. SFSP 

Implementation Study, Sponsor-Site Database (2001). 

NOTE: N/A indicates that the sponsor dates of operation are missing from the sponsor-site database for these 

states, and thus we cannot calculate whether their sponsors or sites operated in July. 

FNS = Food and Nutrition Service; ROAP = FNS regional office-administered program. 

APPENDIX E 

NUTRIENT AND FOOD CODING ANALYSIS 

E.3

This appendix describes (1) the software, nutrient database, and coding procedures used to 

code the information recorded on the meal and plate waste observation forms; (2) the quality 

assurance procedures used to review the coding; and (3) the methods used to analyze and report 

meal pattern compliance, food preferences, and most frequently served foods. 

A. NUTRIENT CODING OF MEAL OBSERVATION AND PLATE WASTE FORMS 

1. Coding Software and Nutrient Database 

The University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center and the Agricultural Research 

Service (ARS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), collaborated in the 

development of the Food Intake Analysis System© 3.99 (FIAS). FIAS is a DOS-based software 

application that allows entry and nutrient analysis of dietary data. 

As described in Appendix A, for each mealtime observed during Summer Food Service 

Program (SFSP) Implementation Study site visits, 5 or 10 plates were sampled for observation of 

foods served, and 10 plates were sampled for observation of foods wasted. Interviewers 

provided complete descriptions of each plate’s foods and recorded the portion size or amount of 

each food served or wasted on meal observation and plate waste forms. Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. (MPR) hired two nutrition coders to code these forms. Before coding began, 

MPR sent the coders to a 2-day training class at the University of Texas, where they learned how 

to use FIAS.1

 The coders also completed additional practice exercises after the training, but 

before they began using FIAS to enter the study data. 

Data from the forms were entered into FIAS’s analysis program; the program uses the 

information on foods and portion sizes to calculate the nutrient content of each food reported as 

served or wasted. After this nutrient analysis was completed, FIAS produced ASCII files 

containing food codes and nutrients for each food served or wasted on each plate; these can be 

used with other database management and statistical software. 

The FIAS 3.99 database consists of the Survey Nutrient Data Base (SNDB), developed by 

ARS and used in the 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) (Standard 

Reference (SR) Release 12; 1998). FIAS also includes a Primary Data Set (PDS), which consists 

of approximately 7,300 foods, and, for each food, a recipe and 49 nutrient values, including fatty 

acids. 

The FIAS database has two important limitations. First, folate values in FIAS 3.99 include 

updated food composition data for cereal grains fortified with folic acid, but they do not 

distinguish between naturally occurring folate (food folate) and synthetic folic acid added during 

fortification. Dietary Folate Equivalents (DFEs) must be used to fully assess the most current 

Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for folate (National Academy of Sciences, Institute of 

Medicine 1998). DFEs take into consideration the differing bioavailability from naturally 

 1

Both coders had background in nutrition. 
E.4

occurring folate in foods and from synthetic folate in fortified foods (as well as from dietary 

supplements); thus the new RDA is expressed in terms of micrograms (mcg) of DFEs.2

Comparing the FIAS-based estimates of mean folate (mcg of total folate, unadjusted for 

food folate versus synthetic folate) with the current RDA for folate (expressed as DFEs) provides 

a lower bound for the percentage of the RDA level provided by SFSP foods. Some of the foods 

served at SFSP meals are fortified with folic acid (for example, cereals and breads), and folic 

acid contributes more to DFEs than does food folate; thus, the FIAS folate values would be 

adjusted upward if they were converted to DFEs. If data were available to adjust the folate 

values in the SFSP meals to produce DFEs, then the mean folate value would be higher. Thus, 

SFSP meals actually provide a higher percentage of the RDA than is reported here. 

The second FIAS 3.99 limitation occurs because total vitamin A activity is expressed in 

international units (IUs) and retinol equivalents (REs); provitamin-A carotenoids are expressed 

in terms of REs. The Institute of Medicine’s Dietary Reference Institute committee 

recommended the use of a new method of calculating vitamin A activity, from the previous 

method based on individual carotenoids, to a new unit based on Retinol Activity Equivalents 

(RAEs) (National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, 2001).3

 The revised RDA for 

vitamin A is based on RAEs, but the FIAS 3.99 database produces REs; thus, because some 

proportion of the foods SFSP provide carotenoids with a lower RAE value than RE value, the 

comparisons of mean vitamin A provided in SFSP foods with the RDA will overestimate the 

percentage of the RDA met. 

2. Initial Data Review 

After receiving the meal observation and plate waste forms from the field interviewers, 

MPR survey staff in Princeton, New Jersey, copied them and sent the originals to MPR’s 

Washington, DC, office for nutrient coding. Nutrition coders in the Washington office logged in 

the forms and reviewed them for completeness. In addition, Dr. Ronette Briefel, the senior 

project nutritionist, reviewed the forms completed during each interviewer’s initial site visits in 

order to provide feedback to each interviewer early in the data collection period. She also 

reviewed additional site forms as necessary, to answer questions arising during coding. 

Throughout the data collection period, the interviewers received additional training on 

frequently recurring meal recording issues. The training was provided through periodic mailings 

and telephone calls. 

Nutrition coders who had questions after receiving the observation and plate waste forms or 

whose forms lacked completed information sent data retrieval forms to field coordinators. The 

 2

To calculate the DFE, it is necessary to have separate values for naturally occurring food 

folate and for synthetic folic acid added to food: mcg DFE = mcg food folate + (1.7 times mcg 

folic acid) (National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine 1998). 

3

Darkly colored, carotene-rich fruits and vegetables, such as carrots, sweet potatoes, and 

broccoli, provide half as much vitamin A as previously estimated. 
E.5

field coordinators, in turn, telephoned the interviewers to receive answers to the coders’

questions. Interviewers sometimes were able to provide the missing information. In some cases, 

however, they were unable to recall the information (for example, the type of milk served); in 

other cases, they had not been able to observe it (for example, whether a sandwich had 

condiments). The nutrition coders used the coding guidelines developed by the study 

nutritionists to address incomplete information. 

3. Coding Guidelines 

The nutrition research staff worked with the nutrition coders to develop coding guidelines 

for this study (Table E.1). The guidelines were adapted from guidelines currently used in 

national food consumption surveys. To illustrate how the guidelines worked, consider the 

following example, on developing guidelines for chocolate milk. FIAS has a “Not Further 

Specified” (NFS) option to be used when the information on the food consumed was extremely 

limited, and the coders needed guidance on when to use that option. Because FIAS did not 

include 1-percent chocolate milk in the database, but this was commonly reported, the coders 

coded 1-percent chocolate milk as the recipe, “chocolate syrup, low-fat milk added.” They used 

the recipe, rather than FIAS’s chocolate milk NFS option, because the recipe provided a more 

accurate nutrient profile. 

To make coding decisions, the coders relied on information from the food labels and recipes 

sent in by interviewers, the coding guidelines, and consultation with the project’s nutritionists, 

Dr. Briefel and Ms. Teresa Zavitsky, as necessary. The nutritionists met weekly with the coders 

to review and resolve any coding problems or issues, and to ensure that the coders used the 

study’s coding guidelines in a consistent fashion. Few recipes were received from the field 

interviewers, and the coders were able to match and code all of them to a food or recipe in the 

FIAS system. 

4. Quality Assurance Procedures for Coding Work 

Several steps were taken to ensure the quality of the food and nutrient coding. All forms 

were reviewed for content and completeness by the coders and/or by one of the project’s 

nutritionists. As coders entered the meals, they flagged and attached notes to items that raised 

questions; the questions were then answered by a nutritionist. In addition, a nutritionist reviewed 

the FIAS data for the first 12 sites, which represented almost 10 percent of all meals entered, and 

for a random 20 percent of the remaining sites. After all the data had been entered and reviewed, 

data entry errors that had been flagged by FIAS, such as duplicate site numbers or missing 

information, were corrected, and an analysis program was run to produce ASCII files. 

Finally, to catch any errors that had escaped FIAS’s flagging procedure, a nutritionist 

examined the output for each meal for such measures as the range in the number of foods and the 

calories per plate served for the same meal at the same site. Substantial differences between the 

number of foods or the total number of calories on one plate relative to others at a site signaled 

the nutritionist to check for data entry errors by comparing the original meal form with 

information entered into FIAS. The data were considered to be clean and ready for final food 

and nutrient analysis through FIAS only after all outliers were checked and corrected. 
E.6

TABLE E.1 

NUTRIENT CODING GUIDELINES USED IN THE SFSP IMPLEMENTATION STUDY 

1

Food codes listed are 8-digit codes in the USDA Survey Nutrient Database. 

NFS = not further specified. 

A. General Rules 

1. If interviewer coded 10 standardized meals in error and they are all identical, only code 5 meals for Meal 

Observation. 

2. Do not code food items brought from home. 

3. Code all condiments and items added to food. 

B. Foods Missing in FIAS Database 

1. Apple without peel (use apple with peel), #63101000 

2. 1-percent (low fat) chocolate milk and 1-percent (low fat) strawberry milk (use syrup added to 1-percent milk), 

#11513600 

C. Coding Meals—Food Descriptions1

1. Orange juice—use “canned, bottled, or in a carton, unsweetened, 100% juice,” #61210220, if not specified. 

2. Shredded cheese used as a topping or in a Mexican dish, code as natural, prepared cheese, #14104010 

3. Assume canned fruits and vegetables unless specified as fresh. 

4. According to the USDA database, 

Beef, ground, extra-lean, and raw: ~17% fat (g/100g) 

Beef, ground, lean, raw: ~21% fat (g/100g) 

Beef, ground, regular, raw: ~27% fat (g/100g) 

FIAS does not list ground beef by % fat, but rather by its classification (extra lean, lean, regular) in their 

database. Therefore, if the interviewer recorded the % fat, use the following ranges to classify the ground beef in

FIAS: 

Ranges: <19% would be classified as extra-lean; 

 >20 and <25% as lean; 

 and >25% as regular. 

5. Code American cheese as processed, #14410200, if NFS. 

6. Code “Corn, yellow” if corn NFS. 

D. Coding Meals—Portion Sizes 

1. Height of hamburger buns–code as 1.50 inches if not further specified (NFS). Otherwise, code as #51150000 

(Roll, white, soft) and choose hamburger roll under gram weights. 

2. Height of chocolate chip cookies–code as 0.33 inches (1/3 of an inch) if NFS. 

3. Assume 1⁄2 pint for milk and 4 fluid ounces for juice if NFS. 

4. If peanut butter is spread on bread, and the amount of peanut butter is not given, record 2 Tbsp. 

5. In general, use the FIAS coding guidelines for determining the portion size of unknown amounts of items added 

to foods or spread on bread. 

a. Sandwiches: 1. Cheese (1 type): 1 oz 1. Meat (1 type): 2 oz 

 2. Cheese (2 types): 3⁄4 oz each 2. Meat (2 types): 11⁄2 oz each 

 3. Cheese (3 +): 1⁄2 oz each 3. Meat (3 +): 1 oz each 

b. If peanut butter is spread on a graham cracker, and the amount of peanut butter is not given, record 1.5 

Tbsp. 

E. Coding Plate Waste 

1. A few bites/sips left = code 1/8 left (in between visual code 0 and 1). 

2. Visual code 4 (1-2 bites eaten) = code 7/8 of original portion size (or 0.875). 

3. Code the measured amount listed (not the visual code); use the visual code for the proportion left if that is all the 

information you have. 

4. Crumbs/syrup (e.g., from fruit cocktail)–code 0 waste because it is considered to be a negligible amount. 
E.7

B. ANALYSIS OF FOODS AND FOOD GROUP INFORMATION 

Identifying SFSP foods provided and determining their contributions to meal pattern 

compliance, plate waste, and the nutrient content of the meals provided additional policyrelevant information (see Chapter V). 

1. Most Frequently Served Foods 

It was necessary to manipulate the food code data in the analysis of the most frequently 

served foods (Tables V.5 and V.6). Similar foods were aggregated into broad categories to 

increase the sample size for each food category. A mixed dish sometimes was entered into FIAS 

as a single food; sometimes it was broken down into its component parts. The way it was 

entered in FIAS determined how it was categorized in the food group analysis. For example, if a 

burrito’s components were entered (tortilla, cheese, meat, and so on), it would contain foods in 

several food categories. However, if the burrito that was served resembled a burrito that existed 

in FIAS’s database, it would have been entered as “burrito” and counted in the “mixed dish”

category. Therefore, the prevalence of “mixed dish” items is underestimated in Tables V.5 and 

V.6. 

2. Analysis of Food Preferences 

As in the analysis of most frequently served foods, to analyze children’s food preferences, it 

was necessary to apply or manipulate food codes. During the site supervisor interview, site 

supervisors were asked to list the food that children most liked in each of five categories, and to 

list the food children most disliked in those categories. (The categories are meat or meat 

alternate, vegetable, fruit, bread or bread alternate, and milk [see Table V.7]). To analyze these 

reported food preferences, it was necessary to aggregate foods into broader categories than those 

created by the FIAS food codes. Although similar to the food groups used in the analysis of 

frequently served foods, these food groups were less specific. In the case of fruit, for example, 

some site supervisors specified that the children at their site liked “fresh peaches” or “canned 

peaches” the most, whereas other site supervisors simply reported “peaches.” It also was 

necessary to aggregate foods into broader categories in order to have sufficient sample sizes to 

produce meaningful estimates. Table E.2 lists the categories chosen, and the foods that fell into 

the categories. 

3. Meal Pattern Compliance 

To compare the meals served by nonschool sponsors with the SFSP meal pattern 

requirements (as shown in Table E.3),4

 it was necessary to complete the following data 

processing steps: 

 4

School sponsors may use this meal pattern or the same menu planning approach they use 

for the school meals programs. Menu planning approaches used in the school meals programs 

are described in 7CFR 210.10 and 7CFR 220.8. 
E.8

TABLE E.2 

FOOD CATEGORIES USED TO GROUP SITE SUPERVISORS’ REPORTS 

OF MOST/LEAST LIKED FOODS 

Bread

Bagel 

Biscuits 

Buns—include hot dog, hamburger, 

hoagie 

Bread—dark 

Bread—corn 

Bread—white; other (include soft) 

Bread—egg 

Breadsticks 

Crackers—include Saltines 

Croissants 

Garlic bread 

Muffins 

Pita 

Rolls—all types 

English muffins 

Dessert-type foods—cookies, donuts, 

cinnamon rolls 

Milk 

Chocolate milk—skim 

Chocolate milk—1% (low fat) 

Chocolate milk—2% (reduced fat) 

Chocolate milk—whole 

Chocolate milk—NFS 

Powdered milk 

White milk—skim 

White milk—1% (low fat) 

White milk—2% (reduced fat) 

While milk—whole 

White milk—NFS 

Strawberry milk

Fruit 

Apples—include fresh, apple sauce, apple 

crisp, canned 

Apricots 

Bananas 

Canteloupe 

Dried fruit 

Grapefruit 

Grapes 

Kiwi 

Mixed fruit cup—include fresh and 

canned, fruit cocktail 

Nectarine 

Oranges 

Peaches—include fresh and canned 

Pears—include fresh and canned 

Pineapple—include fresh and canned 

Plums—include fresh and canned 

Raisins 

Strawberries 

Tangerines 

Watermelon

Vegetables 

Beans—include lima, black, baked, NFS 

Bean salad 

Broccoli 

Cabbage—include cole slaw 

Carrots 

Celery 

Corn 

Cucumbers 

Green beans and string beans 

Mixed vegetables 

Onions 

Peas—include black-eyed peas 

Peppers—include green, red 

Potatoes—include French fries, Tator tots 

Potatoes—include potato salad, mashed 

potatoes 

Salad—include tossed salad, chef salad 

Spinach 

Squash 

Tomatoes 

Lettuce and tomatoes (on sandwich) 
TABLE E.2 (continued) 

E.9

NFS = Not Further Specified.

Meats

Bacon 

Beef—hot—include ground, chopped, roast, chicken fried steak, cubes, stew, NFS 

Burger—include hamburger, cheeseburger 

Chicken—include nuggets, strips, fried, cutlets 

Chicken—hot—include breast, soup, baked, NFS 

Chicken—sandwich—include chicken salad, patty 

Corn dogs 

Fish—other—include fried, baked, cod, sticks 

Fish—tuna—include sandwiches, casseroles 

Grilled cheese 

Ham or pork—hot—include riblet, barbecued, chops, roast, NFS 

Hot dogs 

Italian dishes—include lasagna, ravioli, spaghetti 

Meat loaf 

Mexican—include tacos, quesadillas, burritos, fajitas, carne guisada, tostada, nachos 

Macaroni & cheese 

Peanut butter & jelly 

Pizza 

Pot pie 

Refried beans 

Sausage 

Sloppy Joes—include barbecue, picadillo 

Veggie patties, egg rolls 

Ham 

Turkey 

Roast beef 

Bologna 

Salami 

Deli sandwiches/combination meat sandwiches 
E.10

TABLE E.3 

SFSP MEAL PATTERN REQUIREMENTSa 

Breakfast Meal Pattern 

Select all three components for a reimbursable meal

1 milk 1 cup fluid milk 

1 fruit/vegetable 1⁄2 cup juice1

 and/or vegetable 

1 grains/bread2

 1 slice bread or 

 1 serving cornbread or biscuit or roll or muffin or 

 3⁄4 cup cold dry cereal or 

 1⁄2 cup hot cooked cereal or 

 1⁄2 cup pasta or noodles or grains 

1 meat/meat alternate3 

1

Fruit or vegetable juice must be full-strength. 

2

Breads and grains must be made from whole-grain or enriched meal or flour. Cereal must be whole-grain or 

enriched or fortified. 

3

The meat/meat alternate option at breakfast is optional. 

Lunch and Supper Meal Pattern 

Select all four components for a reimbursable meal 

1 milk 1 cup fluid milk 

1 fruit/vegetable 3⁄4 cup juice1

 and/or vegetable 

1 grains/bread2

 1 slice bread or 

 1 serving cornbread or biscuit or roll or muffin or 

 3⁄4 cup cold dry cereal or 

1⁄2 cup hot cooked cereal or 

1⁄2 cup pasta or noodles or grains 

1 meat/meat alternate 2 oz lean meat or poultry or fish3 or 

 2 oz alternate protein product or 

 2 oz cheese or 

 1 large egg or 

 1⁄2 cup cooked dry beans or peas or 

 4 Tbsp peanut or other nut or seed butter or 

 1 oz nuts and/or seeds4

 or 

 8 oz yogurt5 

1

Fruit or vegetable juice must be full-strength. 

2

Breads and grains must be made from whole-grain or enriched meal or flour. Cereal must be whole-grain or 

enriched or fortified. 

3

A serving consists of the edible portion of cooked lean meat or poultry or fish. 

4

Nuts and seeds may meet only one-half of the total meat/meat alternate serving and must be combined with another 

meat/meat alternate to fulfill the lunch or supper requirement. 

5

Yogurt may be plain or flavored, unsweetened or sweetened. 

a

School sponsors may use this meal pattern or the same menu planning approach they use for the school meals 

programs. Menu planning approaches used in the school meals programs are described in 7CFR210.10 and 

7CFR220.8. 
E.11

• Match FIAS output files to the Pyramid Servings Database for USDA Survey Food 

Codes. This step provided the number of pyramid servings in 100 grams of food, by 

food code.5

• Adjust the pyramid serving sizes to uniformly match the SFSP meal pattern 

requirements6

• Group foods and sum serving sizes for comparison with the meal pattern 

requirements. For example, to determine whether the fruit/vegetable requirement was 

met, all fruits and vegetables served on a plate were grouped, and the servings were 

summed. 

• Compare each plate’s foods and adjusted serving sizes with the SFSP meal pattern 

requirements for that meal. For each plate, the analysis assessed whether all 

components were present in the required amounts, and whether each component was 

present in the required amount. For plates that did not meet the requirements, the 

amounts of individual components were further broken down into one of two 

categories: (1) component present, but in an insufficient amount; or (2) component 

not present (see Tables V.8 and V.9). 

 5

Data are grouped by the 5 major pyramid food groups (grain, vegetable, fruit, dairy, and 

meat) and by selected subgroups, as well as by fats, added sugars, and alcohol (30 groups in all). 

The database was produced by the Community Nutrition Research Group (CNRG), Agricultural 

Research Service, USDA, and is available on the CNRG website, 

http://www.barc.usda.gov/bhnrc/cnrg. 

6

For example, based on the Pyramid Servings Database, three-quarters of a cup of 

100-percent juice is considered one serving. However, for breakfast, the meal pattern 

requirement is one-half of a cup of 100-percent juice, which is two-thirds of the pyramid serving. 

Therefore, the original pyramid serving size amount was multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to account 

for this adjustment (0.67 * 1.5 = 1.0). 

APPENDIX F 

SUPPLEMENTAL MEAL SERVICE TABLES 

TABLE F.1 

SELECTED MEAL CHARACTERISTICS AT SCHOOL- AND NONSCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES 

 Percentage of Sites Percentage of Meals Served 

 School SE Nonschool SE School SE Nonschool SE 

Meal Service Arrangementa (n = 161)Meals Served in a Serving Line/Food Pick-Up Line 

Variety of food 24.4 (5.95) 2.5 (1.10) 35.2 (9.17) 4.4 (2.34) Unitized meal 60.4 (9.36) 53.5 (6.64) 50.7 (9.52) 49.9 (7.10) 

Meals Served to Seated Children 

Variety of food 2.4 (2.05) 1.1 (0.67) 2.7 (1.97) 13.5 (7.83) Unitized meal 21.0 (7.94) 40.7 (6.49) 23.9 (9.76) 39.9 (5.83) 

Meals Served to Children as They Arrive 27.8 (7.98) 12.8 (4.46) 17.3 (7.09) 12.6 (4.48) Meals Served to Children Dispersed Throughout the Site 7.8 (3.76) 2.1 (1.99) 8.2 (3.75) 2.3 (1.77) Sites Serving Meals Indoors 81.2 (5.22) 70.4 (6.91) 86.3 (5.54) 78.3 (5.41) Outdoors 17.6 (5.26) 25.4 (6.81) 10.9 (5.15) 16.8 (4.66) Indoors and Outdoors 1.2 (1.20) 4.2 (2.59) 2.8 (2.73) 5.0 (2.51) Sites Where Children Assist with Meal Preparation or Meal Service 2.5 (1.98) 11.9 (4.59) 2.8 (1.86) 10.1 (3.54) 

F.3 
TABLE F.1 (continued) 

F.4 

 Percentage of Sites Percentage of Meals Served  School SE Nonschool SE School SE Nonschool SE 

Sites with On-Site Drinking Water Available 61.7 (7.93) 44.4 (9.98) 70.2 (5.85) 54.7 (10.99) Sites Serving Water with Meals 5.3 (2.92) 5.2 (2.59) 7.1 (3.68) 5.6 (2.36) Sites with a Share Box Present at Any Meal 36.4 (7.29) 51.6 (6.37) 31.8 (8.18) 45.4 (6.60) Sites Where These Meals or Meal Components Are Carried Off Site (n = 152):

None 92.7 (3.17) 80.0 (6.47) 93.5 (3.06) 88.5 (3.82) Whole Meals 3.2 (2.87) 3.0 (2.11) 3.3 (2.95) 1.8 (1.18) Fruits and/or Vegetables Only 2.8 (1.85) 9.5 (6.39) 1.4 (0.90) 3.4 (2.42) Other Components 1.3 (1.08) 7.5 (3.70) 1.7 (1.30) 6.3 (3.38) Sample Size 79 — 83 — — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sites and meals served nationally. 

aMultiple answers allowed, so total of percentages may exceed 100 percent. 

SE = standard error. 
TABLE F.2 

HANDLING AND STORAGE OF FOOD AT INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SITES

 Percentage of Sites Percentage of Meals Served  Indoor SE Outdoor SE Indoor SE Outdoor SE Food Safety and HandlingSites with On-Site Facilities for Hand-Washing (n = 155) 82.5 (4.46) 65.3 (12.00) 83.7 (3.93) 63.6 (13.18) Sites Where Gloves Are Available for Staff Who Handle Food 51.3 (6.65) 30.4 (11.00) 69.3 (7.13) 44.2 (14.59) Sites Where All Staff Who Handle and Serve Food Wear Gloves(n = 158) 41.3 (5.57) 25.1 (9.55) 50.3 (7.73) 33.5 (10.24) 

Number of Minutes Food Sat Out Before It Was Served (n = 159) 

0 1 to 15 16 to 30 3 to 60 >60 Food out when interviewer arriveda 

2.6 

65.6 16.1 

3.2 3.1 9.5 

(1.82) (5.54) (4.70) (2.42) (2.87) (3.01) 

10.0 52.0 18.0 

7.0 5.2 7.9 

(5.83) 

(12.03) 

(9.68) (6.79) (4.32) (6.05) 

1.7 

66.7 19.2 

1.3 1.0 

10.2 

(1.14) (6.44) (6.30) (0.90) (0.69) (3.21) 

13.7 50.4 10.5 12.6 

4.4 8.4 

(9.06) 

(14.39) 

(6.48) 

(11.42) 

(3.67) (6.79) 

Food Storage

Sites with On-Site Refrigerator 93.1** (3.53) 31.7 (11.30) 96.6** (1.79) 35.3 (15.44) Sites with On-Site Cooler 63.9 (6.86) 69.0 (10.89) 68.6 (5.64) 53.5 (10.92) Sites with On-Site Freezer 73.4** (5.52) 29.1 (10.86) 86.8** (3.30) 34.0 (15.67) Sample Size 133 — 23 — 133 — 23 — 

F.5 
TABLE F.2 (continued)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

F.6 

SOURCE: SPSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sites and meals served nationally. The table does not show six sites that were considered to be both 

indoor sites and outdoor sites. 

aAs described in Appendix A, interviewers were instructed to arrive at least 30 minutes before breakfast, and 1 hour to 1 hour 30 minutes before lunch. For 

9 percent of the meal observations, however, interviewers arrived later because they had difficulty finding the SFSP meal location, or because the meal service had started earlier than scheduled. 

SE = standard error. **Significantly different from outdoor sites at the .01 level, t-test. 
TABLE F.3 

MEAL PATTERN COMPONENTS SERVED BY SCHOOL SPONSORS AT BREAKFAST AND LUNCH 

(Percentage of Meals Observed) 

 Component 

Present in 

SFSP Meal 

Pattern 

Amounta

Standard 

Error 

Component 

Present, Not in 

SFSP Meal 

Pattern 

Amounta

Standard 

Error 

Component 

Not Present 

Standard 

Error 

Breakfast 

Milk 98.2 (1.06) 0.1 (0.10) 1.8 (1.04) Fruit and/or vegetable 88.2 (7.07) 10.6 (7.03) 1.3 (0.60) Bread/bread alternate 95.7 (2.13) 4.1 (2.11) 0.2 (0.17) Meat/meat alternateb 28.5 (9.54) n.a. n.a. 71.5 (9.54) 

Sample Sizec 369 — — — — — 

Lunch Milkd 93.4 (2.29) 0.3 (0.20) 6.3 (2.29) 

Fruit and/or vegetable 90.9 (3.52) 8.5 (3.26) 0.7 (0.39) Bread/bread alternate 96.0 (1.77) 3.9 (1.76) 0.1 (0.08) Meat/meat alternate 71.0 (6.22) 28.9 (6.21) 0.1 (0.08) Sample Sizee 540 — — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of meals served nationally. 

aAs defined by SFSP meal pattern guidelines. bAt breakfast, the meat/meat alternative component is optional. This table reflects whether a meat or a meat alternative component was present, 

but not whether it was present in the suggested amount. 

F.7 
TABLE F.3 (continued)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

F.8 

cTotal number of meals observed at breakfast at 54 sites. dIncludes kosher meals, where sites may have been exempt from serving milk. Fewer than 1 percent of nonschool sites and fewer than 2 percent 

of school sites visited at lunch were considered kosher sites, where a milk exemption was likely. 

eRepresents total number of meals observed at lunch at 78 sites. 

n.a. = not applicable. 
TABLE F.4 

MEAL PATTERN COMPONENTS SERVED AT NON-OVS AND OVS SCHOOL-SPONSORED LUNCHES 

(Percentage of Lunches Observed) 

 Component 

Present in 

SFSP Meal 

Pattern 

Amounta

Standard 

Error 

Component 

Present, Not in 

SFSP Meal 

Pattern 

Amounta

Standard 

Error 

Component 

Not Present 

Standard 

Error 

Non-OVS Lunches Milkb

Fruit and/or vegetable Bread/bread alternate Meat/meat alternate 

91.4 96.1 97.0 64.6 

(4.34) (1.99) (2.37) 

(10.24) 

0.4 3.9 3.0 

35.4 

(0.38) (1.99) (2.37) 

(10.24) 

8.2 

0 0 0 

(4.38) 

(—) (—) (—) 

Sample Sizec 210 — — — — — 

OVS LunchesMilkb

Fruit and/or vegetable Bread/bread alternate Meat/meat alternate 

95.1 86.3 95.1 

76.7 

(1.50) (6.31) (2.49) (6.39) 

0.2 

12.5 

4.7 

23.1 

(0.19) (5.80) (2.47) (6.36) 

4.7 1.2 0.2 0.2 

(1.47) (0.76) (0.16) (0.16) 

Sample Sized 330 — — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of lunches served nationally. 

aAs defined by SFSP meal pattern guidelines. bIncludes kosher meals, where sites may have been exempt from serving milk. Fewer than 2 percent of school sites visited at lunch were 

considered kosher sites, where a milk exemption was likely. 

F.9 
TABLE F.4 (continued)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

F.10 

cTotal number of meals observed at non-OVS lunches at 36 sites. dTotal number of meals observed at OVS lunches at 42 sites. 

n.a. = not applicable; OVS = offer versus serve. 
TABLE F.5 

MEAN ENERGY AND NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP BREAKFASTS AND COMPARISON 

WITH RDAs AT SCHOOL- AND NONSCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES 

 School Nonschool 

Mean SE 

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year 

Olds

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year 

Olds Mean SE 

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year 

Olds

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year 

Olds

Energy (kcal) 412 (39.5) 21a 21a 441 (33.0) 22a 22a

Protein (g) 14.7 (1.27) 53a 53a 15.8 (1.61) 56a 56aTotal Fat (% kcal) 27.0 (2.06) n.a. n.a. 22.3 (2.09) n.a. n.a. Saturated Fat (% kcal) 11.3 (0.33) n.a. n.a. 10.2 (0.78) n.a. n.a. Carbohydrate (% kcal) 58.6 (1.91) n.a. n.a. 63.8 (2.24) n.a. n.a. Vitamin A (RE) 310 (26.7) 78b 52b 353 (51.2) 88b 59b

Vitamin C (mg) 34 (4.3) 136 76 44 (9.0) 176 98 Calcium (mg) 386 (17.7) 48c 30c 368 (20.6) 46c 28c

Iron (mg) 4.1 (0.43) 41 51 4.4 (0.81) 44 55 Sodium (mg) 513 (61.0) n.a. n.a. 572 (104.3) n.a. n.a. Cholesterol (mg) 52 (12.1) n.a. n.a. 55 (13.1) n.a. n.a. Dietary Fiber (g) 1.9* (0.19) n.a. n.a. 3.1 (0.51) n.a. n.a. Sample Sized 369 — — — 187 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfasts served nationally. 

aValue represents one-fourth of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. bValue represents the upper bound, as the mean is expressed as Retinol Equivalents (REs), and the RDA is expressed as Retinol Activity 

Equivalents. See Appendix E for a detailed discussion. 

F.11 
TABLE F.5 (continued)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

F.12 

cValue represents the percentage of the Adequate Intake (AI) of calcium. The AI is used as the recommended standard because an RDA is not 

available. 

dTotal number of plates observed at 54 school-sponsored sites and 31 nonschool-sponsored sites. 

n.a. = not applicable; RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance; SE = standard error.  *Significantly different from nonschool meals at the .05 level, chi-squared test. 
TABLE F.6 

MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED ON A 

SINGLE DAY AT BREAKFAST AT SCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES 

Nutrition Standarda Percentile 

Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 

Energy (kcal) 412 (39.5) 500b 500b 251 277 402 500 597 

Protein (g) 14.7 (1.27) 7b 7b 9.7 10.4 12.0 16.6 24.5 Total Fat (% kcal) 27.0 (2.06) <30 <30 17.7 20.5 26.0 32.6 42.6 Saturated Fat (% kcal) 11.3 (0.33) <10 <10 6.6 8.8 10.9 14.4 15.9 Carbohydrate (% kcal) 58.6 (1.91) >55 >55 44.6 51.8 61.6 63.4 70.3 Vitamin A (RE) 310 (26.7) 100 150 139 191 328 383 467 Vitamin C (mg) 34 (4.3) 6.25 11.25 7 12 41 46 56 Calcium (mg) 386 (17.7) 200c 325c 317 334 346 429 514 Iron (mg) 4.1 (0.43) 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.5 4.0 5.8 6.3 Sodium (mg) 513 (61.0) <600 <600 280 308 401 561 1,027 Cholesterol (mg) 52 (12.1) <75 <75 14 18 29 51 96 Dietary Fiber (g) 1.9 (0.19) 2-3 3.5-4.5 0.9 1.2 1.8 2.2 2.9 Sample Size 369 — — — — — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfasts served nationally. Based on 369 plates observed at 54 sites. 

aOne-fourth of the RDA for energy and nutrients; Dietary Guidelines for fat and saturated fat densities; National Research Council 

recommendation for carbohydrate density, sodium, and cholesterol; and American Health Foundation for fiber. 

bValue represents one-fourth of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. 

F.13 
TABLE F.6 (continued) 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

F.14 

cValue represents the percentage of the Adequate Intake (AI) of calcium. The AI is used as the recommended standard because an 

RDA is not available. 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance; SE = standard error. 
TABLE F.7 

DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED ON A SINGLE 

DAY AT BREAKFAST AT NONSCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES 

Nutrition Standarda Percentile 

Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 

Energy (kcal) 441 (33.0) 500b 500b 256 287 407 524 639 

Protein (g) 15.8 (1.61) 7b 7b 9.6 9.9 15.1 16.2 27.5 Total Fat (% kcal) 22.3 (2.09) <30 <30 9.9 16.9 19.4 27.9 35.6 Saturated Fat (% kcal) 10.2 (0.78) <10 <10 5.3 7.9 10.1 12.1 15.0 Carbohydrate (% kcal) 63.8 (2.24) >55 >55 47.0 60.0 65.8 72.3 76.0 Vitamin A (RE) 353 (51.2) 100 150 142 265 296 395 707 Vitamin C (mg) 44 (9.0) 6.25 11.25 4 12 26 54 90 Calcium (mg) 368 (20.6) 200c 325c 300 312 349 474 492 

Iron (mg) 4.4 (0.81) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.7 3.4 5.3 10.3 Sodium (mg) 572 (104.3) ≤600 ≤600 211 215 475 820 1,152 Cholesterol (mg) 55 (13.1) ≤75 ≤75 14 18 23 36 73 Dietary Fiber (g) 3.1 (0.51) 2-3 3.5-4.5 0.7 1.6 3.0 4.0 5.7 Sample Size 187 — — — — — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfasts served nationally. Based on 187 plates observed at 31 sites. 

aOne-fourth of the RDA for energy and nutrients; Dietary Guidelines for fat and saturated fat densities; National Research Council 

recommendation for carbohydrate density, sodium, and cholesterol; and American Health Foundation for fiber. 

bValue represents one-fourth of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. 

F.15 
TABLE F.7 (continued)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

F.16 

cValue represents the percentage of the Adequate Intake (AI) of calcium. The AI is used as the recommended standard because an 

RDA is not available. 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance; SE = standard error. 
TABLE F.8 

MEAN ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP BREAKFASTS AND 

COMPARISON WITH RDAs AT VENDED AND NONVENDED SITES 

 Vended Nonvended 

Mean SE 

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year 

Olds 

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year 

Olds Mean SE 

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year 

Olds 

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year 

Olds 

Energy (kcal) 359 (35.5) 18a 18a 440 (34.3) 22a 22a

Protein (g) 12.2* (1.23) 44a 44a 15.9 (1.26) 57a 57aTotal fat (% kcal) 17.8** (2.57) n.a. n.a. 26.8 (1.61) n.a. n.a. Saturated fat (% kcal) 8.6* (1.14) n.a. n.a. 11.4 (0.29) n.a. n.a. Carbohydrate (% kcal) 68.9** (2.32) n.a. n.a. 58.8 (1.63) n.a. n.a. Vitamin A (RE) 267* (25.7) 67b 45b 342 (30.6) 86b 57b

Vitamin C (mg) 46 (13.0) 184 102 36 (5.2) 144 80 Calcium (mg) 363 (40.3) 45c 28c 382 (14.0) 48c 29c

Iron (mg) 2.6** (0.60) 26 33 4.6 (0.40) 46 58 Sodium (mg) 286** (37.9) n.a. n.a. 597 (69.6) n.a. n.a. Cholesterol (mg) 25** (4.9) n.a. n.a. 60 (10.8) n.a. n.a. Dietary Fiber (g) 2.4 (0.49) n.a. n.a. 2.4 (0.36) n.a. n.a. Sample Sized 98 — — — 458 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfasts served nationally. 

aValue represents one-fourth of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. 

F.17 
TABLE F.8 (continued)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

F.18 

bValue represents the upper bound, as the mean is expressed as Retinol Equivalents (REs), and the RDA is expressed as Retinol Activity Equivalents. 

See Appendix E for a detailed discussion. 

cValue represents the percentage of the Adequate Intake (AI) of calcium. The AI is used as the recommended standard because an RDA is not 

available. 

dTotal number of plates observed at 15 vended sites and 70 nonvended sites. 

n.a. = not applicable; RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance; SE = standard error.  *Significantly different from nonvended meals at the .05 level, chi-squared test. **Significantly different from nonvended meals at the .01 level, chi-squared test. 
TABLE F.9 

MEAN ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED AT SFSP LUNCHES AND COMPARISON 

WITH RDAs AT SCHOOL AND NONSCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES 

 School Nonschool 

Mean SE 

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year 

Olds 

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year 

Olds Mean SE 

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

4 to 8 Year 

Olds 

Mean as 

Percentage of 

Total RDA for 

9 to 13 Year 

Olds 

Energy (kcal) 656 (24.7) 33a 33a 671 (19.4) 34a 34a

Protein (g) 25.7 (0.85) 92a 92a 27.5 (1.24) 98a 98aTotal fat (% kcal) 32.8 (0.86) n.a. n.a. 31.3 (0.94) n.a. n.a. Saturated fat (% kcal) 12.3 (0.50) n.a. n.a. 11.5 (0.62) n.a. n.a. Carbohydrate (% kcal) 51.5 (1.04) n.a. n.a. 52.7 (1.00) n.a. n.a. Vitamin A (RE) 298 (38.0) 75b 50b 472 (107.4) 118b 79bVitamin C (mg) 30 (4.1) 120 67 23 (3.1) 92 51 Calcium (mg) 444 (18.1) 56c 34c 453 (15.1) 57c 35cIron (mg) 3.9 (0.19) 39 49 4.0 (0.16) 40 50 Sodium (mg) 1,078 (85.6) n.a. n.a. 1,226 (63.2) n.a. n.a. Cholesterol (mg) 55 (4.5) n.a. n.a. 59 (5.5) n.a. n.a. Dietary Fiber (g) 5.5 (0.44) n.a. n.a. 5.5 (0.29) n.a. n.a. Sample Sized 540 — — — 449 — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfasts served nationally. 

aValue represents one-third of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. 

F.19 
TABLE F.9 (continued)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

F.20 

bValue represents the upper bound, as the mean is expressed as Retinol Equivalents (REs), and the RDA is expressed as Retinol Activity Equivalents. 

See Appendix E for a detailed discussion. 

cValue represents the percentage of the Adequate Intake (AI) of calcium. The AI is used as the recommended standard because an RDA is not 

available. 

dTotal number of plates observed at 78 school-sponsored sites and 83 nonschool-sponsored sites. 

n.a. = not applicable; RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance; SE = standard error.  *Significantly different from nonschool meals at the .05 level, chi-squared test. **Significantly different from nonschool meals at the .01 level, chi-squared test. 
TABLE F.10 

MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED 

ON A SINGLE DAY AT LUNCH AT SCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES 

Nutrition Standarda Percentile 

 Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 

Energy (kcal) 656 (24.7) 667b 667b 415 522 651 749 892 

Protein (g) 25.7 (0.85) 9b 9b 18.5 20.9 24.2 30.2 35.6 

Total Fat (% kcal) 32.8 (0.86) <30 <30 23.5 27.5 31.6 37.2 42.3 Saturated Fat (% kcal) 12.3 (0.50) <10 <10 8.5 10.2 12.2 14.1 17.0 

Carbohydrate (% kcal) 51.5 (1.04) >55 >55 42.1 48.1 53.1 55.7 60.2 

Vitamin A (RE) 298 (38.0) 133 200 113 152 213 301 338 Vitamin C (mg) 30 (4.1) 8 15 8 11 19 46 73 Calcium (mg) 444 (18.1) 267c 433c 324 377 436 530 604 Iron (mg) 3.9 (0.19) 3.3 2.7 2.4 3.1 3.7 4.7 5.4 Sodium (mg) 1,078 (85.6) <800 <800 522 667 1,036 1,376 1,704 

Cholesterol (mg) 55 (4.5) <100 <100 24 37 51 69 93 Dietary Fiber (g) 5.5 (0.44) 3-4 4.5-6 2.7 3.6 5.0 7.3 9.2 Sample Size 540 — — — — — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of lunches served nationally. Based on 540 plates observed at 78 sites. 

aOne-third of the RDA for energy and nutrients; Dietary Guidelines for fat and saturated fat densities; National Research Council 

recommendation for carbohydrate density, sodium, and cholesterol; and American Health Foundation for fiber. 

F.21 
TABLE F.10 (continued)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

F.22 

bValue represents one-third of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. cValue represents the percentage of the Adequate Intake (AI) of calcium. The AI is used as the recommended standard because an 

RDA is not available. 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance; SE = standard error. 
TABLE F.11 

MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY AND KEY NUTRIENTS SERVED 

ON A SINGLE DAY AT LUNCH AT NONSCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES 

Nutrition Standarda Percentile 

 Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 

Energy (kcal) 671 (19.4) 667b 667b 486 577 647 766 819 

Protein (g) 27.5 (1.24) 9b 9b 18.1 22.1 25.5 31.2 40.3 Total Fat (% kcal) 31.3 (0.94) <30 <30 22.9 26.6 29.2 36.8 41.7 Saturated Fat (% kcal) 11.5 (0.62) <10 <10 6.6 8.5 11.0 14.2 16.9 Carbohydrate (% kcal) 52.7 (1.00) >55 >55 41.3 47.3 53.2 57.9 61.8 Vitamin A (RE) 472 (107.4) 133 200 154 174 231 311 1,587 Vitamin C (mg) 23 (3.1) 8 15 7 11 18 26 43 Calcium (mg) 453 (15.1) 267c 433c 349 364 444 508 582 Iron (mg) 4.0 (0.16) 3.3 2.7 2.7 3.3 3.8 4.9 5.3 Sodium (mg) 1,226 (63.2) <800 <800 771 902 1,113 1,487 1,820 Cholesterol (mg) 59 (5.5) <100 <100 22 33 49 74 99 Dietary Fiber (g) 5.5 (0.29) 3-4 4.5-6 3.0 4.3 5.2 6.6 7.9 Sample Size 449 — — — — — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of lunches served nationally. Based on 449 plates observed at 83 sites. 

aOne-third of the RDA for energy and nutrients; Dietary Guidelines for fat and saturated fat densities; National Research Council 

recommendation for carbohydrate density, sodium, and cholesterol; and American Health Foundation for fiber. 

F.23 
TABLE F.11 (continued)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

F.24 

bValue represents one-third of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. cValue represents the percentage of the Adequate Intake (AI) of calcium. The AI is used as the recommended standard because an 

RDA is not available. 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance; SE = standard error. 
TABLE F.12 

MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF NUTRIENTS SERVED 

ON A SINGLE DAY AT BREAKFAST 

 Nutrition Standarda Percentile 

 Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 

Protein (g) 15.2 (1.02) 7.0b 7.0b 9.6 10.3 13.2 16.4 25.4 Total Fat (g) 12.8 (1.36) n.a. n.a. 5.2 6.0 10.2 17.3 24.0 

Saturated fat (g) 5.3 (0.42) n.a. n.a. 2.6 3.0 4.6 6.8 9.1 Monounsaturated fat (g) 4.5 (0.53) n.a. n.a. 4.2 5.2 6.9 11.4 14.6 Polyunsaturated fat (g) 2.1 (0.42) n.a. n.a. 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.7 6.2 

Carbohydrate (g) 63.8 (4.10) n.a. n.a. 41.3 44.3 60.1 81.4 96.8 B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.47 (0.042) 0.15 0.23 0.23 0.34 0.43 0.58 0.81 Riboflavin (mg) 0.80 (0.042) 0.15 0.23 0.56 0.67 0.72 0.88 1.21 Niacin (mg) 4.18 (0.462) 2.00 3.00 1.61 2.46 3.58 5.03 7.70 Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.48 (0.044) 0.15 0.25 0.23 0.29 0.47 0.61 0.87 

Folate (mcg) 100 (9.7) 50 75 45 67 91 119 163 Vitamin B12 (mcg) 1.26 (0.074) 0.30 0.45 0.87 0.89 1.02 1.50 2.01 

Vitamin E (mg) 1.24 (0.173) 1.75 2.75 0.32 0.41 0.94 1.81 2.64 Phosphorus (mg) 376 (14.6) 125 313 266 288 365 435 559 Magnesium (mg) 68 (3.0) 33 60 46 55 64 80 94 

F.25 
TABLE F.12 (continued)

F.26 

 Nutrition Standarda Percentile  Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 

Zinc (mg) 2.79 (0.177) 1.25 2.00 1.37 1.71 2.63 3.56 4.40 Copper (mg) 0.21 (0.022) 0.11 0.18 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.28 0.40 Potassium (mg) 729 (36.5) n.a. n.a. 532 582 674 817 1,148 Selenium (mcg) 19 (2.1) 8 10 7 10 15 23 38 Sample Size 556 — — — — — — — — SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfasts served nationally. Based on 556 plates observed at 85 sites. 

aOne-fourth of the RDA for nutrients. bValue represents one-fourth of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. 

n.a. = not applicable; RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance; SE = standard error. 
TABLE F.13 

MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF NUTRIENTS SERVED 

ON A SINGLE DAY AT LUNCH 

 Nutrition Standarda Percentile 

Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 

Protein (g) 26.5 (0.74) 9.3b 9.3b 18.4 21.6 24.8 30.3 37.8 Total Fat (g) 24.8 (0.79) n.a. n.a. 13.5 17.2 22.9 29.0 37.0 

Saturated fat (g) 9.0 (0.34) n.a. n.a. 4.8 6.4 8.9 10.8 13.1 Monounsaturated fat (g) 9.3 (0.36) n.a. n.a. 8.1 9.1 11.5 14.0 16.6 Polyunsaturated fat (g) 4.7 (0.27) n.a. n.a. 1.8 2.2 3.9 6.1 8.3 

Carbohydrate (g) 87.3 (2.63) n.a. n.a. 58.5 71.2 87.6 101.3 114.5 B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.52 (0.021) 0.20 0.30 0.34 0.39 0.49 0.60 0.79 Riboflavin (mg) 0.77 (0.018) 0.20 0.30 0.61 0.67 0.75 0.85 0.97 Niacin (mg) 6.29 (0.302) 2.67 4.00 3.44 4.08 5.39 7.88 9.95 Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.50 (0.025) 0.20 0.33 0.28 0.33 0.44 0.62 0.82 

Folate (mcg) 100 (3.7) 67 100 56 74 91 126 154 Vitamin B12 (mcg) 1.55 (0.057) 0.40 0.60 0.92 1.13 1.37 1.88 2.41 

Vitamin E (mg) 2.80 (0.166) 2.33 3.67 1.22 1.69 2.39 3.43 4.60 Phosphorus (mg) 499 (13.2) 167 417 373 401 483 574 637 Magnesium (mg) 98 (3.0) 43 80 66 77 93 108 138 

F.27 
TABLE F.13 (continued) 

F.28 

 Nutrition Standarda Percentile 

Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 

Zinc (mg) 3.23 (0.097) 1.67 2.67 2.02 2.55 3.02 3.52 4.65 Copper (mg) 0.39 (0.014) 0.15 0.23 0.20 0.29 0.40 0.46 0.55 Potassium (mg) 1,008 (23.9) n.a. n.a. 774 839 980 1,119 1,341 Selenium (mcg) 33 (1.6) 10 13 18 24 29 38 49 Sample Size 989 — — — — — — — — SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of lunches served nationally. Based on 989 plates observed at 161 sites. 

aOne-third of the RDA for nutrients. bValue represents one-third of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. 

n.a. = not applicable; RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance; SE = standard error. 
TABLE F.14 

MEAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF NUTRIENTS SERVED 

ON A SINGLE DAY AT SUPPER 

 Nutrition Standarda Percentile 

 Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10thb 25th 50th 75th 90thb

Protein (g) 39.8 (4.63) 9.3c 9.3c 26.3 31.1 34.7 42.9 61.2 Total Fat (g) 31.7 (1.70) n.a. n.a. 22.3 29.8 31.9 34.3 43.3 

Saturated fat (g) 10.8 (0.78) n.a. n.a. 8.0 8.3 10.7 12.5 14.3 Monounsaturated fat (g) 12.2 (1.07) n.a. n.a. 10.1 11.6 13.3 19.0 20.1 Polyunsaturated fat (g) 6.0 (0.99) n.a. n.a. 2.6 4.2 4.5 8.3 11.6 

Carbohydrate (g) 86.1 (10.55) n.a. n.a. 59.0 63.1 71.9 105.1 129.3 B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.51 (0.042) 0.20 0.30 0.39 0.42 0.46 0.63 0.68 Riboflavin (mg) 0.80 (0.017) 0.20 0.30 0.71 0.75 0.79 0.82 0.94 Niacin (mg) 10.53 (1.415) 2.67 4.00 5.86 7.40 9.61 11.93 15.77 Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.72 (0.083) 0.20 0.33 0.46 0.51 0.56 1.01 1.04 

Folate (mcg) 117 (11.8) 67 100 91 94 102 134 175 Vitamin B12 (mcg) 1.63 (0.271) 0.40 0.60 0.64 1.26 1.30 2.38 2.95 

Vitamin E (mg) 3.54 (0.344) 2.33 3.67 2.68 3.03 3.37 3.83 3.92 Phosphorus (mg) 535 (16.6) 167 417 416 498 511 614 640 Magnesium (mg) 101 (11.2) 43 80 73 76 91 128 149 

F.29 
TABLE F.14 (continued)

F.30 

 Nutrition Standarda Percentile  Mean SE 

4 to 8 

Years 

9 to 13 

Years 10thb 25th 50th 75th 90thb

Zinc (mg) 4.70 (0.651) 1.67 2.67 2.68 2.83 4.28 5.98 7.61 Copper (mg) 0.44 (0.074) 0.15 0.23 0.26 0.32 0.35 0.51 0.64 Potassium (mg) 1,115 (118.6) n.a. n.a. 782 860 1,092 1,174 1,487 Selenium (mcg) 45 (6.0) 10 13 27 34 35 61 72 Sample Size 75 — — — — — — — — SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of suppers served nationally. Based on 75 plates observed at 12 sites. 

aOne-third of the RDA for nutrients. bMay be unreliable due to small sample size. cValue represents one-third of the 1989 RDA for children aged 7 to 10 years. n.a. = not applicable; RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance; SE = standard error. 
F.31 

TABLE F.15 

MEAN AND PERCENTAGE OF ENERGY AND NUTRIENTS WASTED 

AT BREAKFAST AT SCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES, 

BASED ON PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONSa 

Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total 

Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Macronutrients 

Energy (kcal) 154 (23.0) 412 (39.5) 37 

Protein (g) 5.8 (0.96) 14.7 (1.27) 40 

Carbohydrate (g) 21.7 (3.12) 59.9 (4.78) 36 

Total Fat (g) 5.2 (1.02) 13.5 (2.04) 39 

Saturated fat (g) 2.2 (0.40) 5.4 (0.58) 41 

Monounsaturated fat (g) 1.7 (0.35) 4.7 (0.79) 36 

Polyunsaturated fat (g) 0.8 (0.24) 2.4 (0.67) 33 

Vitamins and Minerals 

Vitamin A (RE) 97 (12.9) 310 (26.7) 31 

B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.13 (0.021) 0.43 (0.023) 30 

Riboflavin (mg) 0.27 (0.038) 0.75 (0.027) 36 

Niacin (mg) 0.90 (0.166) 3.72 (0.265) 24 

Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.13 (0.018) 0.45 (0.029) 28 

Folate (mcg) 25 (4.7) 91 (4.9) 28 

Vitamin B12 (mcg) 0.48 (0.063) 1.13 (0.070) 42 

Vitamin C (mg) 11 (2.7) 34 (4.3) 31 

Vitamin E (AE) 0.44 (0.106) 1.25 (0.275) 35 

Calcium (mg) 164 (22.1) 386 (17.7) 43 

Phosphorus (mg) 152 (21.6) 376 (19.6) 40 

Magnesium (mg) 26 (3.7) 66 (2.5) 39 
TABLE F.15 (continued) 

F.32

Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total 

Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Iron (mg) 1.0 (0.15) 4.1 (0.43) 24 

Zinc (mg) 0.83 (0.128) 2.85 (0.208) 29 

Copper (mg) 0.08 (0.015) 0.20 (0.023) 38 

Potassium (mg) 287 (34.1) 705 (33.6) 41 

Selenium (mcg) 6 (1.4) 18 (2.1) 36 

Other Dietary Components 

Sodium (mg) 176 (35.8) 513 (61.0) 34 

Cholesterol (mg) 23 (7.0) 52 (12.1) 44 

Dietary Fiber (g) 0.6 (0.15) 1.9 (0.19) 34 

Sample Sizec 520 — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfasts nationally. 

a

Does not include waste from the share box items or discarded meals. 

b

Calculated as mean nutrient wasted divided by the mean nutrient served times 100. 

c

Total number of plates observed at 54 sites. 
F.33 

TABLE F.16 

MEAN AND PERCENTAGE OF ENERGY AND NUTRIENTS WASTED 

AT BREAKFAST AT NONSCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES, 

BASED ON PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONSa 

Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total 

Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Macronutrients 

Energy (kcal) 123 (9.5) 441 (33.0) 28 

Protein (g) 4.4 (0.45) 15.8 (1.61) 28 

Carbohydrate (g) 19.6 (1.99) 69.5 (5.07) 28 

Total Fat (g) 3.3 (0.44) 11.9 (1.69) 28 

Saturated fat (g) 1.5 (0.18) 5.2 (0.58) 29 

Monounsaturated fat (g) 1.1 (0.18) 4.1 (0.70) 27 

Polyunsaturated fat (g) 0.5 (0.11) 1.7 (0.41) 29 

Vitamins and Minerals 

Vitamin A (RE) 106 (14.3) 353 (51.2) 30 

B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.13 (0.023) 0.52 (0.084) 26 

Riboflavin (mg) 0.24 (0.024) 0.86 (0.081) 28 

Niacin (mg) 1.32 (0.250) 4.83 (0.944) 27 

Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.14 (0.028) 0.54 (0.092) 25 

Folate (mcg) 28 (5.6) 112 (19.9) 25 

Vitamin B12 (mcg) 0.41 (0.051) 1.45 (0.106) 28 

Vitamin C (mg) 11 (2.2) 44 (9.0) 24 

Vitamin E (AE) 0.45 (0.119) 1.22 (0.172) 37 

Calcium (mg) 108 (6.9) 368 (20.6) 29 

Phosphorus (mg) 108 (6.9) 377 (22.8) 29 

Magnesium (mg) 20 (1.4) 71 (5.6) 28 
TABLE F.16 (continued) 

F.34

Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total 

Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Iron (mg) 1.2 (0.33) 4.4 (0.81) 27 

Zinc (mg) 0.74 (0.103) 2.72 (0.275) 27 

Copper (mg) 0.07 (0.014) 0.24 (0.036) 30 

Potassium (mg) 237 (30.0) 764 (71.3) 31 

Selenium (mcg) 6 (1.1) 21 (3.9) 27 

Other Dietary Components 

Sodium (mg) 143 (25.7) 572 (104.3) 25 

Cholesterol (mg) 13 (2.7) 55 (13.1) 24 

Dietary Fiber (g) 1.1 (0.22) 3.1 (0.51) 36 

Sample Sizec 295 — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of breakfasts nationally. 

a

Does not include waste from the share box items or discarded meals. 

b

Calculated as mean nutrient wasted divided by the mean nutrient served times 100. 

c

Total number of plates observed at 31 sites. 
F.35 

TABLE F.17 

MEAN AND PERCENTAGE OF ENERGY AND NUTRIENTS WASTED 

AT LUNCH AT SCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES, 

BASED ON PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONSa 

Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total 

Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Macronutrients 

Energy (kcal) 204 (13.7) 656 (24.7) 31 

Protein (g) 7.7 (0.54) 25.7 (0.85) 30 

Carbohydrate (g) 28.1 (2.09) 85.1 (4.19) 33 

Total Fat (g) 7.4 (0.67) 25.3 (1.23) 29 

Saturated fat (g) 2.6 (0.20) 9.2 (0.46) 28 

Monounsaturated fat (g) 2.8 (0.28) 9.8 (0.57) 29 

Polyunsaturated fat (g) 1.4 (0.22) 4.5 (0.42) 31 

Vitamins and Minerals 

Vitamin A (RE) 155 (58.5) 298 (38.0) 52 

B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.16 (0.014) 0.52 (0.031) 31 

Riboflavin (mg) 0.24 (0.021) 0.75 (0.028) 32 

Niacin (mg) 1.71 (0.146) 6.12 (0.433) 28 

Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.14 (0.011) 0.47 (0.037) 30 

Folate (mcg) 36 (3.2) 101 (4.6) 36 

Vitamin B12 (mcg) 0.43 (0.035) 1.49 (0.067) 29 

Vitamin C (mg) 10 (1.3) 30 (4.1) 33 

Vitamin E (AE) 0.92 (0.109) 2.91 (0.255) 32 

Calcium (mg) 138 (14.3) 444 (18.1) 31 

Phosphorus (mg) 149 (11.8) 486 (19.3) 31 

Magnesium (mg) 29 (2.4) 96 (4.9) 30 
TABLE F.17 (continued) 

F.36

Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total 

Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Iron (mg) 1.3 (0.09) 3.9 (0.19) 33 

Zinc (mg) 0.98 (0.059) 3.19 (0.107) 31 

Copper (mg) 0.12 (0.012) 0.38 (0.021) 32 

Potassium (mg) 313 (20.4) 972 (30.0) 32 

Selenium (mcg) 10 (0.7) 30 (0.9) 33 

Other Dietary Components 

Sodium (mg) 344 (30.4) 1,078 (85.6) 32 

Cholesterol (mg) 16 (1.7) 55 (4.5) 29 

Dietary Fiber (g) 2.0 (0.22) 5.5 (0.44) 36 

Sample Sizec 749 — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of lunches nationally. 

a

Does not include waste from the share box items or discarded meals. 

b

Calculated as mean nutrient wasted divided by the mean nutrient served times 100. 

c

Total number of plates observed at 78 sites. 
F.37 

TABLE F.18 

MEAN AND PERCENTAGE OF ENERGY AND NUTRIENTS WASTED 

AT LUNCH AT NONSCHOOL-SPONSORED SITES, 

BASED ON PLATE WASTE OBSERVATIONSa 

Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total 

Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Macronutrients 

Energy (kcal) 216 (18.9) 671 (19.4) 32 

Protein (g) 8.3 (0.80) 27.5 (1.24) 30 

Carbohydrate (g) 29.1 (2.55) 89.7 (2.75) 32 

Total Fat (g) 8.0 (0.83) 24.3 (1.10) 33 

Saturated fat (g) 2.7 (0.27) 8.8 (0.55) 31 

Monounsaturated fat (g) 2.9 (0.31) 8.8 (0.41) 33 

Polyunsaturated fat (g) 1.8 (0.29) 4.9 (0.39) 37 

Vitamins and Minerals 

Vitamin A (RE) 253 (98.4) 472 (107.4) 54 

B Vitamins 

Thiamin (mg) 0.17 (0.013) 0.53 (0.027) 32 

Riboflavin (mg) 0.23 (0.018) 0.79 (0.019) 29 

Niacin (mg) 2.26 (0.340) 6.48 (0.468) 35 

Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.18 (0.021) 0.54 (0.029) 33 

Folate (mcg) 33 (2.9) 98 (6.1) 34 

Vitamin B12 (mcg) 0.45 (0.062) 1.63 (0.099) 28 

Vitamin C (mg) 8 (1.4) 23 (3.1) 35 

Vitamin E (AE) 1.01 (0.147) 2.68 (0.213) 38 

Calcium (mg) 124 (8.5) 453 (15.1) 27 

Phosphorus (mg) 149 (11.9) 514 (16.5) 29 

Magnesium (mg) 31 (3.4) 100 (3.4) 31 
TABLE F.18 (continued) 

F.38

Mean 

Waste 

Standard 

Error 

Total 

Mean 

Served 

Standard 

Error 

Percentage 

Wastedb

Iron (mg) 1.3 (0.12) 4.0 (0.16) 33 

Zinc (mg) 1.04 (0.119) 3.27 (0.177) 32 

Copper (mg) 0.13 (0.012) 0.40 (0.015) 33 

Potassium (mg) 318 (25.7) 1,049 (36.9) 30 

Selenium (mcg) 12 (1.5) 37 (3.1) 32 

Other Dietary Components 

Sodium (mg) 405 (40.1) 1,226 (63.2) 33 

Cholesterol (mg) 17 (2.6) 59 (5.5) 29 

Dietary Fiber (g) 2.1 (0.20) 5.5 (0.29) 38 

Sample Sizec 821 — — — — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Site Observations (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of lunches nationally. 

a

Does not include waste from the share box items or discarded meals. 

b

Calculated as mean nutrient wasted divided by the mean nutrient served times 100. 

c

Total number of plates observed at 83 sites. 
APPENDIX G 

SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES FOR CHAPTER III 

G.3 

TABLE G.1 

SPONSORS’ REPORTS ON SFSP REIMBURSEMENTS 

AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES, 

BY SCHOOL AND NONSCHOOL SPONSORS 

 School Sponsor Nonschool Sponsor 

 Percentage SE Percentage SE 

Sponsors in Nonpilot States 

 

Percentage of Administrative Costs 

State Agency Will Cover 

0 to 50 16 (6.6) 33** (8.4) 

51 to 75 7 (3.4) 18 (5.4) 

76 to 99 26 (7.6) 26 (7.9) 

100 51 (8.9) 23 (6.0) 

Percentage of Operating Costs 

State Agency Will Cover 

0 to 50 0 (0.0) 24** (8.7) 

51 to 75 4 (3.1) 26 (7.9) 

76 to 99 31 (9.7) 17 (5.1) 

100 65 (10.0) 33 (8.4) 

Sample Size 45 — 59 — 

All Sponsors 

Expects State Agency to Cover All Costs 42 (8.1) 14** (4.4) 

Sample Size 61 — 60 — 

If Not Expecting All Costs to Be Covered, 

Sources to Cover Differences Between 

Actual Costs and State Reimbursement

 

Sponsor Funds 50 (10.0) 62 (7.5) 

Parent Organization/Affiliation Funds 1 (1.0) 26** (8.2) 

Federal Funds 21 (8.1) 33 (9.8) 

State Funds 28 (8.9) 29 (8.4) 

Local Government Funds 11 (5.0) 24 (7.6) 

Donations/Volunteersa

 0 (0.0) 7 (4.2) 

Other Sourcesb

 6 (2.8) 22* (7.8) 

Sample Size 34 — 50 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 
TABLE G.1 (continued)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

G.4 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. Because of missing data, 

sample sizes for specific responses are slightly lower. 

a

Category constructed from answers about “any other sources” that would help cover the difference 

between actual operating and administrative costs and the state’s reimbursement. 

b

Category combines two categories from the survey: (1) “other nonfederal funds,” and (2) “any other 

sources,” excluding donations and volunteers. 

SE = standard error. 

 *Significantly different from school sponsors at the .05 level, chi-squared test. 

**Significantly different from school sponsors at the .01 level, chi-squared test. 
G.5 

TABLE G.2 

SPONSORS’ REPORTS ON SFSP REIMBURSEMENTS 

AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES, 

BY SPONSORS’ EXPERIENCE 

 Sponsor in Operation 

 2 to 5 Years 6 Years or More 

 Percentage SE Percentage SE 

Sponsors in Nonpilot States 

 

Percentage of Administrative Costs 

State Agency Will Cover 

0 to 50 21 (10.7) 29 (6.7) 

51 to 75 9 (5.9) 15 (4.2) 

76 to 99 26 (10.6) 25 (6.4) 

100 43 (11.7) 31 (6.3) 

Percentage of Operating Costs 

State Agency Will Cover 

0 to 50 17 (11.3) 11 (5.1) 

51 to 75 20 (9.5) 15 (5.4) 

76 to 99 22 (9.9) 23 (5.4) 

100 41 (10.6) 51 (7.3) 

Sample Size 26 — 75 — 

All Sponsors 

Expects State Agency to Cover All Costs 22 (7.3) 33 (6.1) 

Sample Size 35 — 82 — 

If Not Expecting All Costs to Be Covered, 

Sources to Cover Differences Between 

Actual Costs and State Reimbursement

 

Sponsor Funds 69 (9.1) 47 (7.8) 

Parent Organization/Affiliation Funds 17 (9.4) 15 (6.0) 

Federal Funds 34 (12.1) 24 (7.4) 

State Funds 36 (11.2) 24 (7.2) 

Local Government Funds 15 (8.7) 22 (6.0) 

Donations/Volunteersa

 0 (0.0) 8 (4.4) 

Other Sourcesb

 18 (9.7) 14 (4.5) 

Sample Size 25 — 56 — 
TABLE G.2 (continued)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

G.6 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors nationally. Because of missing data, 

sample sizes for specific responses are slightly lower. 

a

Category constructed from answers about “any other sources” that would help cover the difference 

between actual operating and administrative costs and the state’s reimbursement. 

b

Category combines two categories from the survey: (1) “other nonfederal funds,” and (2) “any other 

sources,” excluding donations and volunteers. 

SE = standard error. 

 *Significantly different from 2-to-5 year sponsors at the .05 level, chi-squared test. 

**Significantly different from 2-to-5 year sponsors at the .01 level, chi-squared test. 
G.7 

TABLE G.3 

EXPERIENCED SPONSORS’ COST-CONTROL STRATEGIES, 

BY SCHOOL AND NONSCHOOL SPONSORS

School 

Sponsors 

 Nonschool 

Sponsors 

 Percentage SE Percentage SE 

Any Strategy 79 (6.2) 68 (8.4) 

Staffing 

Combined job functions 55 (7.3) 31* (7.1) 

Hired fewer people 47 (8.0) 18** (4.6) 

Had staff work fewer hours 41 (8.2) 17* (4.7) 

Had volunteers handle work usually done by paid staff 19 (6.6) 25 (7.2) 

Let staff go 14 (4.9) 6 (2.5) 

Reduced hourly pay 2 (1.6) 5 (3.3) 

Meal Preparation 

Found less expensive vendors or suppliers of food or meal 

components 19 (5.7) 42* (8.0) 

Switched from mostly hot meals to mostly cold meals 7 (2.7) 12 (4.9) 

Switched from vended sites to on-site cooking 6 (3.5) 8 (4.0) 

Switched from on-site cooking to vended sites 1 (0.7) 5 (2.6) 

Reduced food costs (found less expensive food, served 

fewer extra meals, changed meal plans)a

 3 (2.0) 1 (0.5) 

Program Administration 

Secured additional funds 4 (2.3) 26** (7.4) 

Reduced site monitoring 4 (2.9) 5 (2.9) 

Reduced site training 3 (2.5) 3 (1.8) 

Participation and Outreach 

Decreased number of sites 12 (4.5) 10 (4.2) 

Reduced publicity and promotion efforts 4 (2.6) 8 (3.1) 

Limited number of participants 0 (0.0) 8* (3.5) 

Other Strategya

 5 (3.7) 7 (3.5) 

Sample Size 59 — 64 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: The sample is restricted to sponsors reporting that they were not in their first year of SFSP 

participation. Sponsors were asked explicitly whether they used particular strategies to 

control costs, except where noted. Because of missing data, sample sizes for specific 

responses are slightly lower. Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors 

nationally. 
TABLE G.3 (continued)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

G.8 

a

Categories constructed from responses to an open-ended question about any other steps sponsors took 

during the past few years to control the costs of the SFSP. 

SE = standard error. 

 *Significantly different from school sponsors at the .05 level, chi-squared test. 

**Significantly different from school sponsors at the .01 level, chi-squared test. 
G.9 

TABLE G.4 

EXPERIENCED SPONSORS’ COST-CONTROL STRATEGIES, 

BY SPONSORS’ EXPERIENCE

 Sponsor in Operation 

 2 to 5 Years 6 Years or More 

 Percentage SE Percentage SE 

Any Strategy 72 (9.0) 15 (7.2) 

Staffing 

Combined job functions 40 (9.1) 44 (6.7) 

Hired fewer people 31 (8.2) 33 (5.6) 

Had staff work fewer hours 33 (9.4) 25 (4.8) 

Had volunteers handle work usually done by paid staff 26 (9.1) 20 (5.8) 

Let staff go 10 (4.5) 10 (3.2) 

Reduced hourly pay 2 (1.5) 5 (3.0) 

Meal Preparation 

Found less expensive vendors or suppliers of food or meal 

components 29 (8.4) 32 (5.9) 

Switched from mostly hot meals to mostly cold meals 3 (3.1) 15* (4.2) 

Switched from vended sites to on-site cooking 2 (1.9) 11 (4.2) 

Switched from on-site cooking to vended sites 3 (2.6) 3 (1.5) 

Reduced food costs (found less expensive food, served 

fewer extra meals, changed meal plans)a 0 (0.0) 3 (1.8) 

Program Administration 

Secured additional funds 21 (8.5) 11 (3.8) 

Reduced site monitoring 6 (4.4) 3 (1.5) 

Reduced site training 3 (2.6) 3 (2.3) 

Participation and Outreach 

Decreased number of sites 10 (5.6) 11 (3.4) 

Reduced publicity and promotion efforts 7 (3.0) 5 (2.5) 

Limited number of participants 3 (2.6) 5 (2.9) 

Other Strategya 7 (5.0) 5 (2.6) 

Sample Size 35 — 87 — 

SOURCE: SFSP Implementation Study, Sponsor Survey (2001). 

NOTE: The sample is restricted to sponsors reporting that they were not in their first year of SFSP 

participation. Sponsors were asked explicitly whether they used particular strategies to 

control costs, except where noted. Because of missing data, sample sizes for specific 

responses are slightly lower. Tabulations are weighted to be representative of sponsors 

nationally. 
TABLE G.4 (continued)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

G.10 

a

Categories constructed from responses to an open-ended question about any other steps sponsors took 

during the past few years to control the costs of the SFSP. 

SE = standard error. 

 *Significantly different from 2-to-5 year sponsors at the .05 level, chi-squared test. 

**Significantly different from 2-to-5 year sponsors at the .01 level, chi-squared test.